wBm 


ilHllii 

8iiiPP> 


FROM    THE   LIBRARY   OF 
REV.    LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON.   D.  D. 

BEQUEATHED    BY    HIM    TO 

THE    LIBRARY   OF 

PRINCETON   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 


V 


VS 


DEC  23  1931 


x 


& 


«S 


THE 


./ 


CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY 


PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 


BY 

CHARLES    HODGE,   D.D. 

PROFESSOR    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY,    PRINCETON,     NEW      JERSEY, 

PART  I. 

1705   to   1741. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

PRESBYTERIAN   BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION 
AND  SABBATH-SCHOOL  WORK, 

No.  1334  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1851,  by 

A.    W.    MITCHELL,    M.  D., 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District 
of  Pennsylvania. 


PREFACE. 


Sometime  during  the  past  summer,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hoge,  of  Ohio, 
wrote  to  one  of  his  friends  in  Philadelphia,  stating  that  a  work 
was  greatly  needed,  which  should  give  a  distinct  account  of  the 
character  of  the  present  controversies  in  our  Church.  He  con- 
ceived that  in  order  to  the  proper  exhibition  of  the  subject,  the 
documentary  history  of  the  formation  of  the  first  Presbytery,  of 
the  adopting  act,  of  the  great  schism,  of  the  union  of  the  two 
Synods,  and  of  the  formation  of  our  present  constitution,  should 
be  clearly  presented  to  the  public.  The  gentleman  to  whom  this 
letter  was  addressed  submitted  it  to  a  meeting  of  clergymen  and 
laymen,  who  all  concurred  in  the  opinion  that  such  a  work  ought 
to  be  prepared,  and  united  in  requesting  the  undersigned  to  under- 
take the  task.  A  request  from  such  a  source  the  writer  did  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  decline.  He  soon  found  that  the  work  was  far 
more  extensive  than  was  at  first  supposed.  If  the  documentary 
history  of  the  leading  events  connected  with  the  origin  and  pro- 
gress of  our  Church  was  to  be  given  at  all,  it  was  clearly  right 
that  it  should  be  done  in  the  best  manner  the  materials  at  command 
would  allow.  These  materials,  though  in  some  respects  very  defec- 
tive, were  ascertained  to  be  too  numerous  and  too  important  to  be 
compressed  within  the  limits  of  a  pamphlet.  The  plan  was,  there- 
fore, enlarged,  and  the  writer  was  led  to  undertake  a  general  review 

(3) 


i\  PREFACE. 

of  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States. 
The  design  of  the  work  is  to  exhibit  the  true  character  of  our 
Church ;  to  show  on  what  principles  it  was  founded  and  governed ; 
in  other  words,  to  exhibit  historically  its  constitution,  both  as  to 
doctrine  and  order.  He  has,  therefore,  ventured  to  call  the  work 
"A  Constitutional  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church."  His 
readers  will  not  expect  more  than  this  title  promises.  To  trace 
the  rise  and  progress  of  our  Church  in  different  parts  of  the 
country ;  to  detail  the  controversies,  struggles,  revivals  and  declen- 
sions which  have  attended  its  course,  is  a  work  far  too  extensive 
for  the  time  or  resources  of  the  present  writer.  It  is  indeed 
greatly  to  be  desired  that  some  competent  person  would  undertake 
the  task.  If  this  cannot  be  done,  it  would  be  comparatively  easy 
for  different  persons  to  collect  and  arrange  the  rapidly  perishing 
materials  of  the  history  of  our  Church  in  those  portions  of  the 
country  with  which  they  are  most  familiar.  Such  a  history  for 
Virginia  and  the  Southern  States ;  another  for  Kentucky  and  the 
West ;  and  another  for  the  Middle  States,  could  not  fail  to  be 
instructive  and  interesting.  No  one  who  has  not  attended  to  the 
subject  can  be  aware  of  the  necessity  of  this  work  being  done 
soon,  if  it  is  to  be  done  at  all.  Every  year  carries  with  it  into  for- 
getfulness  the  knowledge  of  important  facts.  Much  has  already 
been  lost,  which  the  men  of  the  last  generation  might  have  pre- 
served. It  is  our  duty  to  save  as  many  of  the  memorials  of  the 
past  as  we  can,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  come  after  us. 

Recent  events  have  led  to  various  speculations  on  the  origin  and 
constitution  of  our  Church.  It  has  been  said,  that  we  owe  our 
ecclesiastical  existence  to  Congregationalists ;  that  the  condition 
of  ministerial  communion  among  us  was  assent  to  the  essential 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel ;  and  that  the  Presbyterian  form  of  gov- 
ernment  which  our  fathers  adopted  was  of  a  very  mitigated  char- 


PREFACE.  V 

acter.  As  these  statements  relate  to  the  fundamental  principles 
of  our  ecclesiastical  compact,  they  deserve  to  be  investigated.  To 
ascertain  how  far  we  are  indebted  for  existence  as  a  Church  to 
Congregationalists,  the  writer  was  led  to  inquire  what  foundation 
was  laid  for  a  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  character  of  the  early 
settlers  of  our  country.  This  inquiry  was  extended  so  far  as  to 
form  an  introductory  chapter  by  itself,  which  may  be  considered 
as  too  long  if  viewed  in  relation  to  the  contents  of  the  present 
volume.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that  this  objection  will  not  be 
considered  of  much  weight,  if  the  probable  extent  of  the  whole 
work  be  taken  into  view.  The  next  subject  of  investigation  was 
the  actual  character  of  our  Church  before  the  year  1729,  as  far  as 
it  can  be  learned  from  its  history  and  records.  This  required  an 
examination  into  the  origin  of  our  early  congregations  and  min- 
isters, and  into  the  standard  of  doctrine  and  form  of  government, 
which  they  adopted.  As  to  the  first  of  these  points,  great  diffi- 
culty has  been  experienced  in  gaining  satisfactory  information. 
The  reader  has  the  results  of  as  thorough  a  search  as  the  circum- 
stances of  the  writer  permitted  him  to  make.  The  exhibition  of 
the  form  of  government  was  comparatively  an  easy  task ;  since 
the  records  of  the  original  Presbytery  and  Synod  furnished  the 
materials  on  which  the  decision  of  that  question  must  be  made. 

The  third  chapter  contains  the  review  of  our  history  from  1729 
to  1741.  As  the  act  by  which  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  was  adopted  by  the  Synod  as  their  standard  of  doctrine,  was 
passed  in  1729,  this  seemed  to  be  the  proper  place  to  exhibit  in 
full  the  testimony  furnished  by  the  records,  not  only  as  to  the  true 
interpretation  of  that  act,  but  as  to  the  condition  of  ministerial 
communion  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

It  is  intended,  should  God  permit,  to  continue,  in  a  second 
volume,  this    history  from  1741  to  1789.      This  will  require  an 


VI  PREFACE. 

exhibition  of  the  causes  of  the  great  schism,  an  investigation  of 
the  doctrinal  and  constitutional  questions  involved  in  that  contro- 
versy, and  of  the  principles  on  which  the  Church  was  settled  at 
the  time  of  the  union  of  the  two  Synods.  Whether  the  work  shall 
be  continued  in  a  third  volume,  embracing  a  review  of  our  history 
from  the  formation  of  the  General  Assembly  to  the  present  time, 
must  depend  on  circumstances  over  which  the  writer  has  no 
control. 

The  author  is  bound  to  acknowledge  his  obligations  to  Dr.  Green 
and  to  Dr.  John  McDowell,  for  allowing  him  access  to  records  and 
documents  in  their  possession.  The  former  of  these  gentlemen  as 
chairman  of  the  committee  appointed  some  years  ago  to  write  the 
history  of  the  Church,  had  received  from  various  sources,  a  great 
number  of  short  sketches  of  the  history  of  particular  congrega- 
tions and  Presbyteries.  Of  these  documents  much  use  has  been 
made  in  the  investigation  of  the  origin  of  our  early  churches. 
They  are  referred  tor  in  the  subsequent  pages,  as  authority  under 
the  general  title  MS.  History. 

CHARLES  HODGE. 

Princeton,  March,  1839.. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Recent  division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  —  Distinctive  opinions  of  the  two 
parties  —  American  Presbyterianism  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  Scot- 
land, and  of  the  French  Protestants  —  Causes  of  the  obscurity  of  the  early 
history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  —  Presbyterian  settlers  of  this  country 
—  The  Puritans ;  the  English  Puritans  were  generally  Presbyterians  — 
Many  of  the  Puritans  who  came  to  this  country  were  Presbyterians  —  The 
settlements  of  the  Puritans  on  Long  Island,  in  New  Jersey,  and  in  the 
Southern  States  —  Dutch  Presbyterians  and  their  settlements ;  the  Germans ; 
the  Welsh ;  the  French  —  The  Scotch  and  Irish  —  Persecutions  of  the  Scotch 
under  Charles  I.  and  II.  —  Settlements  of  the  Scotch  and  Irish  in  New  Eng- 
land, in  New  York,  in  East  Jersey,  in  Pennsylvania,  and  in  the  Southern 
States  —  Conclusion  —  Pages  9-61. 

CHAPTER  II. 

PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  FROM  1705  TO  1729. 

I  ntroductory  remarks  —  Design  of  this  chapter  to  exhibit  the  constitution  of 
the  Church  during  this  period  —  Origin  of  the  earliest  Presbyterian  Congre- 
gations, the  Maryland  churches,  the  Pennsylvania  churches,  churches  of 
New  Jersey,  of  South  Carolina,  of  New  York  and  Long  Island  —  Origin  of 
the  early  members  of  the  Presbytery  —  Ministers  connected  with  the  Pres- 
bytery when  the  Synod  was  formed  —  Ministers  who  joined  the  Synod  from 

(vii) 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

1717  to  1729  —  Standard  of  doctrine  assumed  by  the  Presbytery  —  Form  of 
government  adopted  by  the  Presbytery  —  Organization  of  the  congregations 
—  Powers  exercised  by  the  Presbytery  over  the  churches ;  its  authority  over 
its  own  members  —  Peculiarities  in  its  modes  of  action  —  Powers  of  the 
Synod;  its  peculiarities,  its  commission,  its  plenipotentiary  committees,  its 
Presbyterial  powers  —  Mr.  Gillespie's  overture  respecting  acts  of  Synod  — 
President  Dickinson's  four  articles  relating  to  church  government  —  Pages 
62-126. 


CHAPTER  III. 

PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  FROM  1729  TO  1741. 

Adopting  act ;  its  origin  —  False  assumptions  as  to  its  design  —  Mr.  Thomp- 
son's overture  —  President  Dickinson's  objections  to  it  —  The  act  itself — 
The  true  interpretation  of  it  as  determined  by  its  language  and  avowed  de- 
sign, as  authoritatively  declared  in  1730  and  1736  —  How  it  was  understood 
by  the  Presbyteries;  how  explained  by  contemporary  writers  —  What  has 
been  the  doctrinal  standard  in  our  Church  since  1729  ?  —  The  bearing 
of  the  acts  of  1730  and  1736  on  that  question  —  Standard  assumed  by 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  —  Standard  assumed  by  the  Synod  of  New 
York  —  Standard  fixed  at  the  time  of  the  union  of  the  two  Synods  —  Proof 
that  the  same  standard  has  been  since  maintained  —  Constitution  of  the 
Church  during  this  period  —  List  of  new  members  of  the  Synod  —  Forma- 
tion of  the  Presbyteries  of  Donegal,  Lewes,  East  Jersey,  New  York,  and 
New  Brunswick  —  Presbyterial  powers  of  the  Synod  —  Committees  of  Synod 
—  Correspondents  appointed  to  sit  with  a  Presbytery  —  Committee  on  the 
doctrinal  controversy  between  Messrs.  G.  Tennent'and  D.  Cowell  —  Acts 
and  overtures  —  Act  for  the  examination  of  candidates  upon  experimental 
religion  —  Act  relating  to  marriages  —  Act  relating  to  religious  publica- 
tions—  Act  respecting  the  reception  of  foreign  ministers  —  Act  respecting 
itinerant  preachers  —  Act  relating  to  the  examination  of  candidates;  Oppo- 
sition to  that  measure  —  Conclusion  —  Pages  127-215. 


THE 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH,    &c 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Recent  division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. — Distinctive  opinions  of  the  two 
parties. — American  Presbyterianism  essentially  the  same  with  that  of  Scot- 
land, and  of  the  French  Protestants. — Sources  of  knowledge  of  the  early 
character  of  our  Church. — Obscurity  of  its  early  history. — Presbyterian  set- 
tlers of  this  country. — I.  The  Puritans. — The  English  Puritans  were  gene- 
rally Presbyterians — Many  of  those  who  came  to  this  country  were  Presby- 
terians.— Their  settlements  out  of  New  England. — II.  The  Dutch — their 
settlements. — III.  The  Germans. — IV.  The  French  Protestants. — V.  Scotch 
and  Irish. — The  persecutions  of  the  Scotch  under  Charles  I.  and  II. — The 
settlements  of  the  Scotch  and  Irish  in  this  country. — Conclusion. 

The  controversies  which  have  so  long  agitated  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  have,  at  length,  resulted  in  its  separation.  It  would  not 
be  easy  to  state,  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  both  parties,  the 
points  of  difference  between  them.  It  may,  however,  be  said, 
without  offence,  that  the  one  party  is  in  favour  of  a  stricter 
adherence  to  the  standards  of  the  church,  as  to  doctrine  and  order, 
than  the  other.  On  the  one  hand,  it  has  been  contended  that  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  was  adopted  as  the  Confession 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  only  in  a  very  qualified  manner,  and 
that  the  proper  condition  of  ministerial  communion  is  nothing 
more  than  agreement  in   those  points,  which  are  "  essential  and 

(9) 


10  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government."  *  As  it  regards 
church  order,  it  is  said  that  American  Presbyterianism  is  some- 
thing very  different  from  the  Scottish  system  ;  that  our  higher 
judicatories  have  only  judicial  and  advisory  powers ;  that  is,  the 
right  to  hear  and  decide  appeals,  complaints,  and  references,  and 
to  give  advice ;  that  the  General  Assembly,  especially,  is  nothing 

*  Dr.  Hill,  after  quoting  the  adopting  act  of  1729,  in  which  the  language 
quoted  in  the  text  occurs,  exclaims,  "  Noble,  generous-hearted  Presbyterian 
fathers !"  And  in  commenting  upon  Dr.  Green's  strictures  upon  that  act,  he 
asks,  "  Does  my  venerable  friend  admit  of  no  distinction  between  essential 
and  non-essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  ?  And  does  he  believe  that  every 
word  and  every  sentence  in  our  Confession  of  Faith  contains  essential  doc- 
trine? This  is  not  the  old  divinity  we  were  taught  in  olden  times.  If  I 
mistake  not,  our  present  Confession  of  Faith  does  the  same  in  amount.  (See 
Book  of  Discipline,  ch.  v.  sec.  13,  14,  15.)  'Heresy  and  schism  may  be  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  infer  deposition ;  but  errors  ought  to  be  carefully  consi- 
dered, whether  they  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  are  industriously  spread  ; 
or  whether  they  arise  from  the  weakness  of  the  human  understanding,  and  are 
not  likely  to  do  much  injury.' "  From  this  it  appears  that  Dr.  Hill  considers 
the  "  adopting  act,"  and  our  present  constitution  as  requiring  nothing  more 
than  agreement  in  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel. 

The  Cincinnati  Journal  contains  a  series  of  articles  on  the  early  history 
of  our  Church,  the  ninth  number  of  which  embraces  a  long  extract  from  a 
letter  by  Dr.  Halsey,  published  in  1836.  In  that  letter  Dr.  Halsey  endeavours 
to  show  that  the  conditional  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  "  the  dis- 
tinctive peculiarity  of  our  Church  —  an  avowed  standard  principle."  What 
degree  of  latitude  of  construction,  ought,  in  his  judgment,  to  be  allowed,  may 
be  learned  from  the  following  passage.  "  They  (i.  e.  our  fathers)  believed 
that  visible  union  and  communion  among  Christians  was  a  divinely-appointed 
duty,  and  they  laboured  to  fulfil  it  on  such  terms  as  did  not  merge  Christian 
character.  What  was  essential  to  this  they  maintained,  what  was  not  essen- 
tial they  treated  accordingly ;  leaving  us  an  example  that  we  should  follow 
their  steps."  That  this  relates  to  ministerial  communion  is  evident  from  the 
whole  drift  of  the  letter,  and  from  what  immediately  follows  the  passage  just 
cited.  "  It  may  be  asked  how  this  distinctive  peculiarity  of  our  Church  should 
ever  be  lost  to  the  sight  of  her  members  ?  The  history  of  our  Church  supplies 
the  answer.  In  the  hostilities  of  1741,  the  '  old-side'  in  Philadelphia  became 
possessed  of  the  original  records,  which  became  sequestered.  The  original 
'  adopting  act'  lived  but  in  tradition,  and  the  reproaches  of  adversaries. 
Meanwhile,  those  who  questioned  its  propriety,  taught  their  own  views  of  'the 
adopting  act,'  representing  it  absolute  not  conditional." 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  11 

but  an  appellate  court  and  advisory  council ;  that  our  several  courts 
are,  as  to  their  existence  and  action,  entirely  independent  of  each 
other.*  It  is  asserted  that  "  Congregationalism  was  the  basis  of 
Presbyterianisra  in  this  country;"  and  that  "had  Congregation- 
alists  never  entered  the  field  beyond  the  bounds  of  New  England, 
Presbyterianism  would  scarcely  have  existed  in  this  country,  except 
in  name."  It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  however,  that  all  the  brethren 
who  are  now  considered  as  "New  School"  adopt,  to  their  full 
extent,  either  of  the  extreme  opinions  above  stated. 

On  the  other  side,  it  is  contended  that  our  church,  ever  since  it 
had  a  constitution  at  all,  has  been  strictly  Calvinistic  in  doctrine, 
and  purely  Presbyterian  in  government;  that  is,  that  such  were 
the  requirements  of  the  judicatories  of  the  Church.  The  condi- 
tion of  ministerial  communion  was  not  merely  agreement  in  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  but  the  adoption  of  that  system 
of  doctrine  which  is  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
Catechisms.  A  great  distinction  has  always  been  made  between 
ministerial  and  Christian  communion.  We  are  bound  to  regard 
and  treat  as  Christians,  all  whom,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,  we 
believe  to  be  the  children  of  God.  Accordingly,  assent  to  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  not  required  of  the  private 
members  of  the  church  ;  nor  are  private  Christians  subjected  to 
discipline  for  any  error  not  regarded  as  subversive  of  Christianity. 
But  of  those  who  aspire  to  be  teachers  or  rulers  in  the  church 
much  more  has  been  required.  It  is  not  enough  that  such  should 
be  Christians.  They  must  be  sound  in  the  faith.  To  secure  this 
end,  the  church  has  required  their  assent  to  her  doctrinal  standards 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrines  taught  in  the  word  of  God. 
And  by  system  of  doctrine,  according  to  the  lowest  standard  of 
interpretation,  has  been  understood  the  Calvinistic  system  as  dis- 
tinguished from  all  others.  There  are  indeed  many,  whose  views 
of  subscription  are  such,  that  they  could  not  adopt  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  unless  they  were  able  to  receive  every  distinct  proposi- 

*  See  "  Presbyterianism,  by  a  member  of  the  New  York  Bar."  The  Ame- 
rican Biblical  Repository,  July,  1838.  See  also  Dr.  Hill's  paper  No.  2,  on  the 
Great  Schism. 


12  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

tion  which  it  contains.  This  may  be  right ;  but  it  is  believed  that 
no  attempt  has  ever  been  made  to  enforce  the  discipline  of  the 
church  against  any  individual  who  was  not  believed  to  reject  some 
of  the  distinctive  features  of  the  Calvinistic  system  as  contained 
in  our  Confession. 

With  regard  to  church  order,  it  is  contended  that  our  church 
adopted  from  the  beginning,  and  has  ever  continued  to  exercise 
that  form  of  government  which  had  been  previously  adopted  in 
Scotland,  Ireland,  Holland,  and  among  the  Protestants  of  France. 
This  system  Avas  every  where,  in  all  its  distinctive  and  essential 
features,  the  same.*      It   required   the  government  of   individual 

*  See  "  The  Form  of  Presbyterian  Church  Government,  agreed  upon  by  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster ;  examined  and  approved,  Anno  1645, 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,"  &c.  In  this  directory 
it  is  declared,  that  the  ordinary  and  perpetual  officers  of  the  church  are  pastors, 
teachers,  and  other  church  governors  and  deacons. 

"  In  a  single  congregation  there  ought  to  be  one  at  least,  both  to  labour  in 
word  and  doctrine,  and  to  rule.  It  is  also  requisite  that  there  should  be  others 
to  join  in  government. 

"  It  is  lawful,  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  that  the  church  be  gov- 
erned by  several  sorts  of  Assemblies ;  which  are  congregational,  classical,  and 
synodical. 

"  It  is  lawful,  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  that  the  several  Assem- 
blies before-mentioned  have  power  to  convene,  and  call  before  them  any  per- 
son within  their  several  bounds,  whom  the  ecclesiastical  business  which  is 
before  them  doth  concern. 

"  They  have  power  to  hear  and  determine  such  causes  and  differences  as  do 
orderly  come  before  them. 

"  It  is  lawful,  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  that  all  the  said  Assem- 
blies have  some  power  to  dispense  church  censures. 

"  Synodical  Assemblies  may  lawfully  be  of  several  sorts,  as  provincial,  na- 
tional, and  oecumenical. 

"  It  is  lawful,  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  there  should  be  a  subordi- 
nation of  congregational,  classical,  provincial,  and  national  assemblies  for  the 
government  of  the  church." 

These  few  extracts  from  the  Westminster  Directory,  will  serve  to  show  the 
nature  of  the  Scottish  and  English  system  of  Presbyterianism.  The  French 
system  was  just  the  same.  In  the  discipline  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of 
France,  it  is  said, 

"  In  every  church  there  shall  be  a  consistory  composed  of  persons  who  shall 
have  the  government  of  it:  viz.  pastors  and  elders." 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  IB 

congregations  to  be  vested  in  the  pastor  and  elders,  and  not  in  the 
Irotherhood.  It  required  the  association  of  several  particular 
cl  urches  under  one  Presbytery,  composed  of  ministers  and  elders. 
It  provided  for  provincial  and  national  Synods,  composed  of  dele- 
gates from  the  lower  courts,  and  recognized  as  belonging  to  Synods, 
the  authority  of  review  and  control,  and  the  right  to  set  down 
rules  for  the  government  of  the  church. 

When  it  is  said  that  we  adopted  the  Scottish  system,  the  expres- 
sion is  used  in  its  ordinary  and  proper  acceptation.  When  two 
countries  or  two  churches  are  said  to  have  the  same  system  of 
government,  it  is  not  implied  that  they  have  the  same  laws  in  all 
their  details.  We,  for  example,  have  some  rules  about  the  recep- 
tion of  foreign  ministers,. the  forms  of  process,  statistical  reports, 
&c,  which  are  peculiar  to  ourselves.  The  Church  of  Scotland  has 
a  multitude  of  rules  relating  to  tithes,  patronage,  &c,  which  arise 
out  of  its  peculiar  circumstances.  So,  also,  the  French  Churches 
have  rules  about  schools  and  colleges  which  may  not  be  found  in 
the  Scottish  books.  Still  the  Church  of  Scotland  considers  itself 
as  ado.pting  the  same  system  of  discipline  as  the  Protestants  of 
France,  and  no  authority  is  more  frequently  quoted  by  Scotch 
writers  than  the  Ratio  Disciplinse  of  the  French  churches.  The 
question  is  not  about  any  particular  laws  or  rules,  but  about  prin- 
ciples of  government.  Are  our  courts  "  as  to  their  existence  and 
action  entirely  independent  of  each  other?"  Are  the  acts  of  our 
Synods,  when  not  judicial,  merely  advisory  ?  or  have  our  judica- 
tories the  right  to  set  down  rules  for  the  government  of  the  church? 

For  the  union  of  churches,  it  provides  that  there  shall  be  colloquies  or  classes, 
formed  by  the  authority  of  the  provincial  synod,  and  composed  of  the  minis- 
ters and  an  elder  from  each  church. 

The  authority  of  the  classis  is  subject  to  that  of  the  provincial  synod,  and 
that  of  the  consistory  to  the  classis. 

The  provincial  synod  is  a  convention  of  the  ministers  of  a  province,  together 
with  one  elder,  or  at  most  two,  chosen  by  each  consistory. 

The  national  synod,  it  is  provided,  may  consist  of  deputies,  ministers  and 
elders,  in  equal  proportions,  chosen  by  the  provincial  synods. 

The  national  synod  shall  have  power  to  decide  definitively  on  all  ecclesia? 
tical  matters. 


14  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH. 

The  power  claimed  for  Synods,  using  the  word  in  its  general 
sense,  is  nothing  more  than  what,  in  express  terms,  is  said  to 
belong  to  them  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  It  is  by  no  means  an 
unlimited  power.  It  relates  merely  to  matters  of  government ; 
for  all  legislative  powers  in  "matters  of  religion,"  or  in  things 
affecting  the  conscience,  our  church  has,  with  one  voice,  uniformly 
disclaimed.  It  is,  moreover,  restricted  by  our  present  constitution 
within  very  narrow  limits,  much  narrower  than  those  within  which 
our  old  Synods  were  accustomed  to  move.  It  is  in  the  sense  thus 
explained,  it  is  maintained,  that  our  church  did,  from  the  beginning, 
adopt  the  Scottish  system  of  government,  and  has  maintained  it 
ever  since.  It  is  difficult  to  know  what  is  meant,  when  it  is  said, 
"  the  Presbyterian  systems  of  the  French  Huguenots  and  of  South 
Britain,  were  much  more  mild  than  those  of  Holland  and  Scotland, 
where  they  had  the  civil  authority  to  protect  them  and  enforce 
their  enactments."*  Such  remarks  are  frequently  made.  It  is 
said  that  we  adopted  a  system  more  allied  to  the  mild  form  of 
Presbyterianism  prevalent  among  some  of  the  Reformed  Churches, 
than  to  that  of  Scotland. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  French  Presbyterianism  was 
more  mild  than  that  of  Scotland,  as  would  abundantly  appear  from 
a  review  of  Quick's  "  Synodicon,  or  the  Acts,  Decisions,  Decrees 
and  Canons  of  those  famous  national  councils  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  in  France."  There  were  twenty-nine  of  these  Synods 
held  at  irregular  intervals,  in  the  course  of  a  hundred  years,  as  per- 

*  Dr.  Hill's  Historical  Sketches,  No.  7.  The  systems  were  however  the 
same.  The  Scotch  adopted  and  ratified  the  form  of  government  matured  in 
South  Britain,  and  which  was  there  for  a  time  established.  Neal,  in  his  His- 
tory of  the  Puritans,  says,  "it  may  not  be  improper  to  set  before  the  reader  in 
one  view,  the  discipline  which  was  settled  in  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  and  sub- 
sists at  this  time."  He  then  gives  a  view  of  the  system  which  would  suit  the 
Presbyterianism  of  Holland,  of  France,  or  of  this  country,  just  as  well  as  that 
of  Scotland ;  omitting,  of  course,  mere  matters  of  detail,  as  the  number  of 
Parishes,  Presbyteries,  and  Synods,  the  ratio  of  representation,  the  right  of 
the  Universities  to  send  members  to  the  Assembly,  &c.  As  to  all  essential 
matters,  the  system  is  as  much  French  and  American  as  it  is  Scottish.  Sen 
toI.  iii.  p.  381. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  15 

mission  could  be  obtained  from  the  government.  The  first  was  held 
in  1559,  the  last  in  1659.  The  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes, 
of  course,  put  a  stop  to  all  such  assemblies,  and  consummated  that 
long  train  of  persecutions,  by  which  the  Reformed  Churches  in 
France  were  nearly  extirpated.  It  is  said  that,  in  ten  years,  two 
hundred  thousand  French  Protestants  suffered  martyrdom,  and  about 
seven  hundred  thousand  were  driven  from  the  kingdom.  Few  por- 
tions of  the  Christian  church  have  higher  claims  on  the  sympathy 
and  respect  of  Protestants  than  the  Reformed  Churches  of  France. 
They  were,  however,  rigidly  Calvinistic,  and  strictly  Presbyterian, 
and  those  who  do  not  respect  these  characteristics,  cannot  respect 
them.  Some  idea  of  the  kind  of  Presbyterianism  which  prevailed 
in  France,  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  facts.  The  pro- 
vincial Synods  were  obliged  to  furnish  their  deputies  to  the  national 
Synod,  with  a  commission  in  these  terms :  "We  promise  before  God 
to  submit  ourselves  unto  all  that  shall  be  concluded  and  determined  in 
your  holy  Assembly,  to  obey  and  execute  it  to  the  utmost  of  our  power ; 
being  persuaded  that  God  will  preside  among  you,  and  lead  you  by 
his  Holy  Spirit  into  all  truth  and  equity  by  the  rule  of  his  word, 
for  the  good  and  edification  of  his  Church,  to  the  glory  of  his  great 
name ;  which  we  humbly  beg  of  his  Divine  Majesty  in  our  daily 
prayers."  Quick,  vol.  i.  p.  478.  On  the  next  page  is  the  follow- 
ing record  :  "  The  Confession  of  Faith  of  these  Reformed  Churches 
in  the  kingdom  of  France,  was  read  word  by  word,  from  beginning 
to  the  end,  and  approved  in  all  its  articles  by  all  the  deputies,  as 
well  for  themselves  as  for  the  provinces  that  sent  them,  and  all  of 
them  sware  for  themselves  and  provinces,  that  they  would  teach  and 
preach  it,  because  they  believed  that  it  did  perfectly  agree  with  the 
word  of  God ;  and  they  would  use  their  best  endeavour,  that  as  it 
had  been  hitherto,  so  it  should  be  evermore  received  and  taught  in 
their  churches  and  provinces."  This  Confession  contains  forty  ar- 
ticles, and  occupies  nine  folio  pages ;  and  when  it  is  remembered 
that  it  was  drawn  up  by  Calvin,  it  may  be  conceived  what  doctrines 
it  contains.  It  became  the  custom  to  have  the  Confession  read 
and  readopted  at  every  national  Synod.  The  record  is  nearly  in 
the  same  form  every  time ;  it  was  read  "  word  by  word,  and  re-ex- 


16  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

umined  in  every  particular  point  and  article  ;"  and  the  deputies 
"  swore"  or  "  protested"  for  themselves  and  principals,  "  to  live  and 
die  in  this  faith." 

That  the  French  churches  agreed  with  those  of  Holland  in  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  when  the  deputies 
from  the  Dutch  Churches  appeared  in  the  national  Synod,  held  in 
1583,  and  tendered  the  "  Confession  of  Faith  and  body  of  church 
discipline,  owned  and  embraced  by  the  said  Churches  of  the  Low 
Countries,  this  Assembly,"  it  is  recorded  "  having  humbly  and  heart- 
ily blessed  God  for  that  sweet  union  and  agreement,  both  in  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  between  the  churches  of  this  kingdom  and  of 
that  republic,  did  judge  meet  to  subscribe  them  both  ;  and  it  did  also 
request  those,  our  brethren,  their  deputies,  reciprocally  to  subscribe 
our  Confession  of  Faith  and  body  of  church  discipline ;  which,  in 
obedience  to  the  commission  given  them  by  their  principals,  they 
did  accordingly;  thereby  testifying  mutual  harmony  and  concord 
in  doctrine  and  discipline  of  all  the  churches  in  both  nations."  Vol. 
i.  p.  143. 

When  the  canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  were  published,  they  were 
presented  to  the  national  Synod  of  France,  held  1620.  From  the 
record  relating  to  this  subject,  the  following  is  an  extract :  "  This 
Assembly,  after  invocation  of  the  name  of  God,  decreed  that  the 
articles  of  the  said  national  council  held  at  Dort,  should  be  read  in 
full  Synod,  which  being  read  accordingly,  and  every  article  pondered 
most  attentively,  they  were  all  received  and  approved  by  a  com- 
mon unanimous  consent,  as  agreeing  with  the  word  of  God  and  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  these  our  churches  —  for  which  reason  all 
the  pastors  and  elders  deputed  unto  this  Assembly,  have  sworn  and 
protested,  jointly  and  severally,  that  they  consent  unto  this  doc- 
trine, and  that  they  will  defend  it  with  the  utmost  of  their 
power  even  to  their  latest  breath.  And  this  Assembly  ordaineth 
that  this  very  canon  be  printed  and  added  to  the  canons  of  the  said 
council,  and  that  it  shall  be  read  in  our  provincial  Synods  and  uni- 
versities, that  it  may  be  approved,  sworn,  and  subscribed  to,  by  the 
pastors  and  elders  of  our  churches,  and  by  the  doctors  and  professors 
in  our  universities,  and  also  by  all  those  that  are  to  be  ordained 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  17 

and  admitted  into  the  ministry,  or  into  the  professor's  chair  in  any 
of  our  universities.  And  if  any  one  of  these  persons  should  reject, 
either  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  doctrine  contained  in,  and  decided 
by  the  canons  of  the  said  council,  or  refuse  to  take  the  oath  of  con- 
sent and  approbation;  this  Assembly  decreeth,  that  he  shall  not 
be  admitted  into  any  office  or  employment,  either  in  our  churches 
or  universities."     Quick's  Synodicon,  vol.  ii.  pp.  37,  38.    • 

In  the  Synod,  1644-45,  it  was  reported  "by  certain  deputies 
of  the  maritime  provinces,  that  there  do  arrive  unto  them  from  other 
countries,  some  persons  going  by  the  name  of  Independents,  and 
so  called,  for  that  they  teach  every  particular  church  should  of  right 
be  governed  by  its  own  laws,  without  any  dependency  or  subordi- 
nation, unto  any  person  whatsoever  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  and 
without  being  obliged  to  own  or  acknowledge  the  authority  of  col- 
loquies or  Synods,  in  matters  of  discipline  or  order ;  and  that  they 
settle  their  dwellings  in  this  kingdom  ;  a  thing  of  great  and  danger- 
ous consequence  if  not  in  time  carefully  prevented.  Now  this  As- 
sembly fearing  lest  the  contagion  of  this  poison  should  diffuse  itself 
insensibly,  and  bring  in  a  world  of  disorders  and  confusions  upon  us, 
all  the  provinces  are  therefore  enjoined,  but  more  especially  those 
which  border  on  the  sea,  to  be  exceedingly  careful  that  this  evil  do 
not  get  footing  in  the  churches  of  this  kingdom,"  &c.  &c.  p.  467. 

There  are  many  acts  of  these  Synods  which  would  make  modern 
ears  tingle,  and  which  prove  that  American  Presbyterianism  in  its 
strictest  form,  was  a  sucking  dove  compared  to  that  of  the  immediate 
descendants  of  the  Reformers.  To  maintain  truth  and  order  in  the 
church  in  those  days  of  conflict,  it  required  a  sterner  purpose  and 
firmer  conviction  than  are  commonly  to  be  met  with  at  the  present 
time,  when  many  are  wont  to  change  their  church  and  creed  almost 
as  readily  as  they  change  their  clothes.  This  account  of  the  French 
church  has  been  given,  because,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  there 
was  at  an  early  period,  a  strong  infusion  of  French  Presbyterianism 
into  the  churches  of  this  country,  and  it  is  well  to  know  something 
of  its  character. 

The  Scottish  system  is  now  spoken  of  with  disapprobation,  and 
its  early  advocates  are  called  "  sectarian  bigots."  This  is  certainly 
2* 


18  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

not  the  way  in  which  our  fathers  were  accustomed  to  speak  on  this 
subject.  In  a  minute  adopted  in  1751,  the  Synod  of  New  York 
say,  "  We  do  hereby  declare  and  testify  our  constitution,  order,  and 
discipline  to  be  in  harmony' with  the  established  Church  of  Scot- 
land. The  Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms,  and  Directory  for 
public  worship  and  church  government,  adopted  by  them,  are  in 
like  manner  received  and  adopted  by  us.  We  declare  ourselves 
united  with  that  church  in  the  same  faith,  order,  and  discipline. 
Its  approbation,  countenance,  and  favour,  we  have  abundant  testi- 
monies of."*  In  their  address  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  written  in  1753,  in  furtherance  of  the  efforts 
of  Messrs.  Gilbert  Tennent  and  Samuel  Davies,  in  behalf  of  the 
college  of  New  Jersey,  they  say,  "  In  the  colonies  of  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  and  Carolina,  a  great  many 
congregations  have  been  formed  upon  the  Presbyterian  plan,  which 
have  put  themselves  under  the  synodical  care  of  your  petitioners, 
who  conform  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and 
have  adopted  her  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline." 
Again :  "  Your  petitioners,  therefore,  most  earnestly  pray  that  this 
very  reverend  Assembly  would  afford  the  said  college  all  the  coun- 
tenance and  assistance  in  their  power.  The  young  daughter  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  helpless  and  exposed,  in  this  foreign  land,  cries 
to  her  tender  and  powerful  parent  for  relief."f  Whose  language  is 
this?  Not  that  of  the  "  Old-side"  Synod.  If  it  was,  it  might  be 
regarded  as  a  matter  of  course.  It  is  the  language  of  the  "  New- 
side"  Synod  ;  of  that  body  which,  according  to  the  popular  represent- 
ation, were  opposed  to  the  Scottish  system.  It  is  the  language  of 
the  Tennents,  Blair,  Pemberton,  Davies,  Burr,  Finley,|  and  others. 
Yet  it  is  language  which  those,  who  think  they  adopt  their  prin- 
ciples, will  not  now  bear. 

Both  parties  in  our  church  have  appealed  to  its  early  history  in 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  page  11  of  the  Appendix. 
f  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  Appendix,  pp.  13,  16. 
X  It  appears  from  the  minutes,  that  all  the  gentlemen  mentioned  were  pre- 
sent when  one  or  the  other  of  the  aboved-cited  declarations  was  made,  and  most 
r  them  on  both  occasions. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  10 

support  of  their  peculiar  opinions.  It  is  the  object  of  this  work  to 
review  that  history,  in  order  to  show  that  our  church  has  always 
demanded  adherence  to  the  system  of  doctrines  contained  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  as  the  condition 
of  ministerial  communion ;  and  that  it  has  ever  claimed  and  exer- 
cised all  the  distinguishing  powers  of  Presbyterian  government. 
The  arguments  in  support  of  this  position  will  be  drawn  from  the 
origin,  from  the  official  declarations  and  constitution,  and  from  the 
history  of  the  church.  As  there  have,  at  different  periods,  been 
many  persons  connected  with  the  Church  of  England,  who  disliked 
Episcopacy  ;  so  there  have,  doubtless,  been  many  connected  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church  who  disliked  its  principles,  and  were  far  from 
complying  with  its  demands.  The  question,  however,  is  not  about 
the  opinions  of  individuals,  but  the  avowed  principles  of  the  Church. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  early  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  is  involved  in  great  obscurity.  The  reason 
of  this  fact  is  obvious.  Presbyterians  did  not  at  first  emigrate  in 
large  bodies,  or  occupy  by  themselves  extensive  districts  of  country. 
In  New  England  the  early  settlers  were  Congregationalists.  The 
history  of  that  portion  of  our  country  is,  therefore,  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, the  history  of  that  denomination.  The  same  remark,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  is  applicable  to  the  Dutch  in  New  York,  the  Quakers 
in  Pennsylvania,  the  Catholics  in  Maryland.  The  case  was  very 
different  with  regard  to  the  Presbyterians.  They  came,  as  a  general 
rule,  as  individuals,  or  in  small  companies,  and  settled  in  the  midst 
of  people  of  other  denominations.  It  was,  therefore,  in  most  in- 
stances, only  gradually  that  they  became  sufficiently  numerous  in 
any  one  place  to  form  congregations,  or  to  associate  in  a  Presbyte- 
rial  capacity.  It  is  true  their  increase  was  very  rapid ;  partly  by 
the  aggregation  of  persons  of  similar  principles,  though  of  different 
origin,  and  partly  by  constant  immigration.  This  peculiarity  in 
the  history  of  American  Presbyterians  arose,  in  a  great  measure, 
from  the  fact,  that  the  persecution  which  drove  so  many  of  the 
early  settlers  to  this  country,  fell,  in  the  first  instance,  heaviest  on 
the  Independents  and  Quakers ;  and  when  it  came  upon  the  Pres- 
byterians, (at  least  those  of  Scotland,)  it  did  not  drive  them  so  gene- 


20  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

rally  from  their  own  country,  but  led  to  a  protracted  struggle  for 
liberty  at  home,  a  struggle  which  was  eventually  crowned  with 
success. 

Owing  to  the  circumstances  just  referred  to,  we  are  obliged,  in 
tracing  the  early  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country, 
to  review  the  colonial  history  of  the  several  States,  and  gather  from 
their  records  the  scattered  and  imperfect  intimations  they  afford  of 
the  origin  of  our  own  denomination.  There  is  one  preliminary  remark, 
which  must  be  constantly  borne  in  mind.  The  Puritans  Avere  not  all 
Congregationalists.  The  contrary  impression  has  indeed  become  very 
general,  from  the  fact  that  the  Puritans  settled  New  England,  and 
that  Congregationalism  became  there  the  prevalent  form  of  church 
discipline.  Hence  it  seems  to  be  confidently  inferred,  that  all  emi- 
grants from  Old,  or  New  England,  bearing  that  designation,  must 
have  carried  Congregationalism  with  them  wherever  they  went. 
Hence  too,  it  is  taken  for  granted,  that  if  a  minister  came  into  our 
church  from  New  England,  he  could  not  be  a  Presbyterian.  This  is  a 
great  mistake.  The  Congregationalists  or  Independents  were  a  mere 
handful,  compared  with  the  whole  number  of  the  Puritans.  This  term 
was  applied  to  all  who  were  desirous  of  a  greater  degree  of  purity, 
in  ceremonies,  discipline,  or  doctrine,  than  they  found  in  the  estab- 
lished Church  of  England.  The  first  Puritans,  under  Elizabeth, 
scrupled  about  the  church  vestments.  They  had  no  difficulty  as  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  church  ;  they  were  willing  to  submit  to  Episco- 
pacy, but  they  could  not  reconcile  themselves  to  the  "  idolatrous 
gear,"  as  they  called  it,  which  had  so  long  been  the  distinguishing 
badge  of  the  Popish  priesthood.  This  was  the  first  cause  of  schism  in 
the  English  Church.  It  is  true  many  Puritans  reluctantly  sub- 
mitted to  the  imposition  of  the  clerical  habits,  and  retained  their 
standing  in  the  Church.  This  was  the  case  with  Grindal  himself, 
afterwards  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  A  majority  of  the  members 
actually  present  in  the  convocation,  held  1562,  as  they  were  desi- 
rous of  a  further  reformation,  were  stigmatized  as  Puritans.*  All 
the  most  eminent  churchmen  were  on  their  side,  as  Jewel,  Grindal, 
Sandys,  Nowell.     Archbishop    Parker,  and  Cox,  Bishop  of   Ely, 

*  Neal,  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i.  p.  211. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  21 

stood  almost  alone  on  the  other  side ;  sustained,  however,  by  the 
authority  of  Elizabeth,  whose  will  was  law.*  The  hold  which  the 
Puritans  had  upon  the  people  is  manifest  from  the  frequent  major- 
ities which  they  commanded  in  parliament,  even  during  this  des- 
potic reign,  f  The  main  controversy  was  as  yet  about  ceremonies. 
Had  the  use  of  the  habits  and  a  few  ceremonies  been  left  discre- 
tionary, both  ministers  and  people  had  been  easy ;  but  it  was  the 
compelling  these  things  by  law  (as  they  told  the  Archbishop)  that 
made  them  separate.^  It  was  thus  that  the  first  and  most  scrupu- 
lous class  of  Puritans  were  ejected  from  the  church. 

When  Whitgift  was  made  Archbishop,  in  1583,  he  tightened  the 
reins  of  discipline,  and  of  course  increased  the  number  of  dissen- 
ters. He  published  three  articles,  which  all  who  enjoyed  any  office 
or  benefice  in  the  church  were  obliged  to  subscribe.  The  second 
of  these  articles  declared  that  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  "  con- 
tained nothing  contrary  to  the  word  of  God."  This,  large  num- 
bers could  not  assert,  and  hence  were  suspended  or  deprived. 
Many,  however,  still  remained  in  the  church,  who  either  escaped 
the  imposition  of  the  articles,  through  the  favour  of  their  bishops, 
or  subscribed  with  such  explanations,  as  satisfied  their  consciences. 
Hitherto,  doctrinal  matters  had  not  entered  into  the  controversy. 
The  faith  of  the  Reformers  was  still  the  faith  of  the  church. 
Whitgift,  the  great  persecutor  of  the  Puritans,  was  a  most  strenu- 
ous Calvinist ;  as  were  Grindal  before  him,  and  Abbot  after  him. 
James  I.,  who  had  sent  deputies  to  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  had 
urged  on  the  persecution  of  the  Remonstrants,  suddenly  became, 
under  the  influence  of  a  few  favourite  ecclesiastics,  a  convert  to 
Arminianism.  This,  however,  did  not  change  the  faith  of  the 
church  or  of  the  nation.  Even  "  Oxford,"  at  this  time,  says  Le 
Bas,  the  biographer  and  eulogist  of  Laud,  "  bore  a  greater  resem- 
blance, in  many  respects,  to  a  colony  of  Geneva,  than  to  a  Semi- 
nary of  Anglo-Catholic  Divinity."  §     As  Arminianism,  from  this 

*  Hallam's  Constitutional  History  of  England,  vol.  i.  p.  237. 

f  Ibid.  vol.  i.  ch.  4.  $  Neal,  vol.  i.  p.  252. 

I  Le  BiiV  Life  of  Archbishop  Laud,  p.  5. 


22  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

time,  became  the  doctrine  of  the  high  church  and  court  party, 
Calvinism  was  identified  with  Puritanism.  One  of  the  earliest  par- 
liaments under  Charles  L,  "took  up  the  increase  of  Arminianism 
as  a  public  grievance.  It  was  coupled  in  their  remonstrances  with 
Popery,  as  a  new  danger  to  religion,  hardly  less  terrible  than  the 
former."  *  Under  the  administration  of  Archbishop  Laud,  the 
Puritan  party  rapidly  increased.  It  was  the  fate  of  that  prelate 
to  appear  at  a  time  when  his  spirit  and  principles  were  in  direct 
opposition  to  those  of  the  people  whom  he  attempted  to  govern. 
He  was  for  receding  to  the  very  confines  of  Romanism  ;  they  were 
getting  alienated  even  from  Episcopacy.  He  laid  peculiar  stress 
on  matters  of  ceremony ;  they  were  becoming  more  and  more 
enamoured  of  simple  forms  of  worship.  He  was  most  despotic  in 
his  ideas  of  government ;  they  were  determined  to  be  free.  Every 
parliament  met  but  to  demand  a  redress  of  grievances,  (of  which 
those  arising  from  the  bishops  formed  a  prominent  part,)  and  was 
dissolved  only  to  have  their  burdens  rendered  more  intolerable. 
This  conflict  ended  as  might  have  been  expected.  The  principles 
of  Laud  brought  himself  and  his  unhappy  master  to  the  block. 
During  all  this  time,  opposers  of  the  government  were  called 
Puritans ;  a  term  not  expressive  of  any  one  set  of  opinions,  so 
much  as  of  one  common  object.  Episcopalians,  who  refused  to 
read  the  book  of  Sunday  sports ;  Presbyterians,  who  objected  to 
the  power  of  the  bishops ;  Independents,  who  rejected  all  govern- 
ment in  the  church,  beyond  that  of  a  congregation  over  itself, 
were  all  Puritans.  Subsequent  events  proved  that  the  second  of 
these  classes  was  much  the  most  numerous  of  the  three.  Even  as 
early  as  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  a  large  portion  of  the  clergy  of  the 

*  Hallam,  vol.  i.  p.  551.  The  house  passed  the  following  resolution:  "We 
the  commons  in  parliament  assembled,  do  claim,  protest,  and  avow,  for  truth, 
the  sense  of  the  articles  of  religion  which  were  established  by  parliament 
in  the  thirteenth  year  of  our  late  Queen  Elizabeth,  which  by  the  public  act 
of  the  church  of  England,  and  by  the  general  and  current  exposition  of  the 
writers  of  our  church,  has  been  delivered  unto  us.  And  we  reject  the  sense 
of  the  Jesuits  and  Arminians,  and  all  others  that  differ  from  us."  See  Neal 
vol.  ii.  p.  213. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  23 

established  church  were  Presbyterians  in  principle.  They  were 
unwilling  to  separate  from  the  church  as  long  as  unity  could  be 
preserved,  and  were  willing  to  submit  to  Episcopacy,  rather  than 
be  guilty  of  schism.  They  endeavoured,  to  a  certain  extent,  to 
associate  in  Presbyteries,  without  separating  from  the  establish- 
ment. As  early  as  1572,  a  Presbytery  was  formed  on  these  prin- 
ciples at  Wandsworth  ;  and  other  associations  of  the  same  kind 
were  instituted  in  different  parts  of  the  kingdom.*  Travers  drew 
up  in  Latin  a  form  of  government,  entitled  "The  Discipline  of  the 
Church  as  described  in  the  Word  of  God,"  which  was  printed  at 
Geneva  in  1574.  It  was  subsequently  translated  into  English, 
and  revised  by  Cartwright.f  This  discipline,  which  is  published 
at  length  by  Neal  in  the  Appendix  of  his  history,  is  completely 
Presbyterian.  It  was  subscribed  by  above  five  hundred  beneficed 
clergymen,  as  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God  and  to  be  promoted 
by  all  lawful  means. J  Thus  early  and  thus  numerous  was  the 
Presbyterian  party  in  the  Church  of  England. 

When  the  arbitrary  measures  of  Charles  I.  drove  the  nation  into 
rebellion,  the  partisans  of  the  court  were  of  course  Episcopalian ; 
the  opposite  party  was,  or  became,  in  the  main,  Presbyterian.  It 
is  not  easy  indeed  to  ascertain  the  proportion  which  the  parties  in 
the  Long  Parliament,  opposed  to  the  government  when  it  first  as- 
sembled, bore  to  each  other.  Of  the  Presbyterians,  there  appear 
to  have  been  two  divisions ;  the  one  strenuous  for  their  whole  sys- 
tem, the  other  willing  to  admit  Archbishop  Usher's  plan,§  either 


*  Neal,  vol.  i.  314.  Hallam  dates  the  more  extended  effort  to  establish  a 
Presbyterian  government  within  the  church  in  1590.     See  vol.  i.  p.  158. 

f  This  work  was  soon  suppressed ;  the  Archbishop  having  advised  that  all 
the  copies  should  be  burnt.  It  was  republished  in  1644,  with  the  title,  "  A 
Directory  of  Government  anciently  contended  for,  and  as  far  as  the  time  would 
suffer,  practised  by  the  first  non-conformists  in  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
found  in  the  study  of  the  most  accomplished  divine,  Mr.  Thomas  Cartwright, 
after  his  decease,  and  reserved  to  be  published  for  such  a  time  as  this.  Pub- 
lished by  authority."     Neal,  vol.  i.  p.  439. 

X  Neal,  vol.  i.  p.  471. 

I  This  plan  provided  for  the  government  of  the  church  by  Presbyteries  and 


24  PRESBYTERIAN   CHURCH 

from  preference,  or  as  a  compromise.  A  bill  was  brought  forward 
by  Sir  Edward  Dering  for  the  utter  extirpation  of  Episcopacy, 
which  passed  its  second  reading  by  a  vote  of  139  to  108.*  Yet 
this  gentleman  afterwards  advocated  the  plan  of  Usher.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  many  Presbyterians  would  have  acquiesced  in  this 
scheme  which  was  essentially  Presbyterian,  could  it  have  harmon- 
ized the  conflicting  parties  in  the  kingdom.  When  all  hope,  how- 
ever, of  a  compromise  was  at  an  end,  they  became  more  strenuous 
in  advocating  their  own  system.  When  the  compact  came  to  be 
formed  with  Scotland,  all  the  members  of  the  commons  who  re- 
mained at  Westminster,  to  the  number  of  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
eight,  and  between  twenty  and  thirty  peers,  subscribed  the  solemn 
league  and  covenant,  f  This  no  doubt,  was  done  by  many  from 
motives  of  policy ;  but  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  strong  declara- 
tions in  favour  of  Presbyterianism  which  that  covenant  contains, 
were  not  insincere  on  the  part  of  the  great  majority.  When  the 
parliament  called  together  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines, 
in  1643,  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  clerical,  and  thirty  lay 
members,  of  which  it  consisted,  not  more  than  six  or  seven  were 
Independents,  a  few  were  Erastians,  and  the  remainder,  with  the 
exception  of  some  Episcopalians,  who  soon  retired,  were  Presbyte- 
rians.J  Of  these  Presbyterians  there  were  the  same  two  divisions, 
which  were  just  mentioned  as  existing  in  parliament.  That  this 
Assembly  was  a  fair  representation  of  the  state  of  parties  among 

Synods,  under  the  presidency  pf  a  suffragan  or  bishop.  A  vote  in  favour  of 
this  plan  passed  the  house  in  the  summer  of  1641. 

*  Hallam,  vol.  ii.  p.  158,  who  says  he  suspects  the  greater  part  of  those 
who  voted  for  this  bill  only  wished  to  intimidate  the  bishops.  He  adds,  how- 
ever, in  a  note,  "  Clarendon  tells  us,  that  being  chairman  of  the  committee  to 
•whom  the  bill  was  referred,  he  gave  it  so  much  interruption,  that  no  progress 
could  be  made  before  the  adjournment.  The  house,  however,  came  to  a  reso- 
lution that  the  taking  away  the  offices  of  archbishops,  bishops,  chancellors, 
and  commissaries  out  of  the  church  and  kingdom  should  be  one  clause  of  the 
bill."     This  does  not  look  like  mere  intimidation. 

t  Hallam,  vol.  ii.  p.  225. 

X  Neal,  vol.  iii.  ch.  4.  Chambers'  Life  of  Bishop  Reynolds,  and  Lightfoot's 
Debates  in  the  Westminster  Assembly. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  25 

the  opposers  of  the  government,  subsequent  events  sufficiently 
proved.  The  Presbyterians  became  completely  predominant,  and 
their  form  of  government  was  established  by  law,  a  measure  to 
which  the  Independents  did  not  object,  though  they  insisted  on  free- 
dom for  themselves.  That  the  English  Presbyterians  were  suffi- 
ciently decided,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  Assembly  asserted 
the^ws  divinum  of  Presbyterianism.  To  this  the  parliament  very 
properly  demurred,  and  required  the  declaration  to  be  put  in  the 
form  in  which  it  now  stands  in  the  Directory,  viz.  "  that  it  is  law- 
ful and  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  that  the  church  be  governed 
by  congregational,  classical,  and  synodical  Assemblies."  With 
this  the  English  Presbyterians  were  as  little  satisfied  as  the  Scotch. 
Against  this  declaration  the  London  ministers,  as  well  as  the  mayor 
and  common  council,  earnestly  remonstrated.*     The  Independents 

*  Neal,  vol.  iii.  pp.  290,  291.  One  great  point  of  difference  between  the 
Assembly  and  the  parliament  related  to  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrates  in 
relation  to  the  church.  The  Presbyterians  had  passed  a  resolution  declaring 
that  Jesus  Christ  had  established  a  form  of  government  for  the  church  "  dis- 
tinct from  the  civil  magistrate."  With  this  the  parliament  were  by  no  means 
satisfied.  They  claimed  an  authority  in  the  church  as  extensive  as  that  which 
had  been  exercised  formerly  by  the  king  and  parliament  combined.  The  As- 
sembly was  called  merely  to  give  advice;  they  were  expressly  denied  any  juris- 
diction, power,  or  authority  ecclesiastical,  whatsoever.  Accordingly,  Episco- 
pacy was  abolished,  the  directory  for  worship  enjoined,  Presbyterianism  estab- 
lished, all  by  act  of  parliament.  The  church  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  This 
was  in  strict  accordance  with  the  English  method,  which  has  been  almost  com- 
pletely Erastian  since  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  The  church  cannot  act  with 
authority ;  the  form  of  government,  the  articles,  the  liturgy,  all  derive  their 
binding  force  from  the  civil  rulers.  The  church  is  the  creature  of  the  State. 
To  assert  the  independence  of  the  church  has  always  been  regarded  as  the 
height  of  clerical  arrogance.  See  Hallam's  remarks  on  Cart  Wright's  opinions, 
vcl.  i.  p.  252.  The  power  of  self-government  the  Church  of  England  has 
never  enjoyed.  Every  sentence  of  a  spiritual  judge  is  liable  to  be  reversed  by 
a  civil  tribunal.  Its  bishops  are  appointed,  and  their  number  increased  or 
diminished  at  pleasure,  by  the  government.  Since  the  power  has  passed  out 
of  their  own  hands  the  high-church  party  begin  to  complain  bitterly  of  this 
thraldom.  See  British  Critic,  No.  43,  and  various  numbers  of  the  Oxford 
Tracts.  It  was  on  this  principle  of  subordination  to  tho  civil  authority  that 
Presbyterianism  was  established  by  the  Long  Parliament ;  as  provision  was 


26  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

were  a  small  minority  in  parliament,  among  the  clergy,  and  in  the 
nation.  Their  strength  was  in  the  army.  They  no  doubt  in- 
creased greatly  under  Cromwell ;  but  at  his  death,  when  the  ejected 
members  resumed  their  seats  in  parliament,  the  whole  kingdom  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  Presbyterians.  At  the  restoration  of  Charles 
II.,  "The  Presbyterians,"  says  Neal,  who  was  very  far  from  being 
their  friend,  "  were  in  possession  of  the  whole  power  of  England ; 
the  council  of  state,  the  chief  officers  of  the  army  and  navy,  and 
the  governors  of  the  chief  forts  and  garrisons,  were  theirs :  their 
clergy  were  in  possession  of  both  universities  and  of  the  best  liv- 
ings of  the  kingdom."  Another  proof  how  numerous  and  impor- 
tant the  Presbyterians  were  considered,  is,  that  it  was  deemed 
advisable  in  order  to  conciliate  them,  to  allow  Charles  II.  five 
months  after  his  return,  to  issue  a  declaration  in  which  so  many 
reductions  of  Episcopal  power,  and  so  many  reforms  were  promised, 
as  to  make  the  hierarchy  very  little  more  than  it  would  have  been, 
had  Archbishop  Usher's  plan  been  adopted.  This  declaration  was 
designed,  says  Hallam,  merely  "  to  scatter  dust  in  men's  eyes." 
The  motion  in  parliament  to  give  it  the  force  of  law  was  lost  by  a 
vote  of  183  to  157.*  Instead  of  compromise,  the  harshest  mea- 
sures were  soon  adopted.  The  act  of  uniformity  was  passed  which 
required  re-ordination  of  those  who  had  been  presbyterially  or- 
dained ;  "  assent  and  consent  to  all  and  every  thing  contained,  and 
prescribed,  in  and  by  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  and  the  pro- 
fession of  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience.  This  the  Presbyte- 
rians could  not  submit  to,  and  were  consequently  ejected  from  the 
ministry  of  the  church,  to  the  number  of  about  two  thousand. 
These,  of  course,  were  only  the  most  conscientious,  or  the  most 
decided.  Multitudes  who  had  taken  the  covenant,  conformed,  and 
retained  their  stations.  This  was  the  case  with  Dr.  Reynolds,  a 
man  of  great  learning  and  excellence,  who  was  made  Bishop  of 
Norwich.     Among  those  who  were  ejected,  were  Baxter,  Calamy, 

made  for  an  appeal  from  the  censures  of  the  church  to  a  civil  tribunal.     Neal, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  297,  303.     It  is  hard  to  see  how  this  can  be  avoided  in  any  coun- 
try where  ecclesiastical  censures  are  followed  by  the  forfeiture  of  civil  rights. 
*  Hallam,  vol.  ii.  p.  435. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  27 

Manton,  Bates,  Meade,  and  many  others  scarcely  less  distinguished 
for  their  learning,  piety,  and  zeal.* 

Reference  is  made  to  these  familiar  historical  events  to  correct 
the  impression  that  the  Puritans  were  generally  Congregationalists. 
Every  body  knows,  indeed,  that  such  was  not  the  fact,  yet  from  our 
peculiar  associations  with  the  term,  it  is  commonly  taken  for  granted, 
that  all  who,  as  Puritans,  emigrated  to  this  country  to  avoid  the 
persecutions  which  they  suffered  at  home,  were  Congregationalists. 
The  truth,  however,  is,  that  as  the  great  majority  of  Puritans  in 
England  were  Presbyterian,  so  no  inconsiderable  proportion  of  those 
who  came  to  America,  preferred  the  Presbyterian  form  of  church 
government.!     The  question  will  naturally  be  asked,  If  this  be  so, 

*  The  representation  given  above  of  the  prevalence  of  Presbyterianism 
among  the  Puritans  of  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  is  not  so  strong  as  that  which 
may  be  found  in  the  works  of  authors,  who  cannot  be  suspected  of  partiality. 
Mr.  Bancroft,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  speaking  of  the  state  of 
England,  at  the  close  of  the  first  civil  war,  says:  "The  majority  (of  parlia- 
ment) was  with  the  Presbyterians,  who  were  elated  with  the  sure  hope  of  a 
triumph.  They  represented  a  powerful  portion  of  the  aristocracy  of  Eng- 
land ;  they  had,  besides  the  majority  in  the  Commons,  the  exclusive  possession 
of  the  House  of  Lords ;  they  held  command  of  the  army,  they  had  numerous 
and  active  adherents  among  the  clergy ;  the  English  people  favoured  them. 
Scotland,  which  had  been  so  efficient  in  all  that  had  thus  far  been  done,  was 
entirely  devoted  to  their  interests,  and  they  hoped  for  a  compromise  with  their 

sovereign And  what  compromise  should  be  offered  by  the  Independents? 

How  could  they  hope  for  superior  influence,  when  it  could  be  gained  only  by 
rising  above  the  Commons,  the  peers,  the  commanders  of  the  army,  all  Scot- 
land, and  the  mass  of  the  English  people?"  pp.  9,  10.  This  superior  influence 
they  did  gain  by  the  genius  of  Cromwell,  by  forcibly  ejecting  the  majority  of 
parliament,  and  by  the  devotion  of  the  army.  "  A  free  parliament  would  have 
been  their  doom,"  says  Mr.  Bancroft.  "  Had  peace  never  been  broken,  the 
Independents  would  have  remained  a  powerless  minority  ;  the  civil  war  gave 
them  a  rallying  point  in  the  army."  p.  12. 

f  Neal  admits,  vol.  ii.  p.  468,  that  "  in  the  reigns  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and 
King  James  I.,  the  Puritans  were  for  the  most  part  Presbyterians."  He  adds, 
however,  that  "  from  the  time  that  Arminianism  prevailed  in  the  church,  and 
the  whole  body  of  Calvinists  came  to  be  distinguished  by  the  name  of  doctri- 
nal Puritans,  both  parties  seemed  to  unite  in  a  moderate  Episcopacy."  There 
is  no  doubt  much  ground  for  the  latter  remark.  When  the  erroneous  doc 
trines,  the  popish  ceremonies,  the  exceeding  tyranny  of  the  high-church  party 


28  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

how  came  Congregationalism  to  be  generally  established  in  New 
England  ?  The  answer  is,  that  the  first  settlers  were  Congregation- 
alists.  They  belonged  to  that  division  of  the  Puritans,  which,  de- 
parting farthest  from  the  established  church,  first  felt  the  necessity 
of  setting  up  for  themselves.  In  coming  to  this  country,  they  came 
with  the  determination  to  carry  out  their  principles,  and  thus  the 
mould  into  which  the  additional  settlers  were  cast,  as  they  success- 
ively arrived,  was  fixed  at  the  beginning.  Again,  the  master-minds 
among  the  early  Puritans  in  this  country,  by  whom  their  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  polity  was  determined,  were  principally  Congregation- 
alists.  And,  thirdly,  as  the  Puritan  Presbyterians  were  willing,  for 
the  sake  of  the  great  ends  of  peace  and  union,  to  unite  with  the 
Episcopalians  in  a  modified  form  of  Episcopacy;  so  for  the  same 
important  objects,  they  were  willing  to  unite  with  the  Independents 
in  New  England,  in  a  modified  form  of  Congregationalism.  Such 
was  the  intimate  union  between  Church  and  State,  established  in 
the  New  England  provinces,  that  it  was  hardly  possible  that  dif- 

under  Charles  I.,  had  driven  almost  the  whole  of  the  better  part  of  the  church, 
as  well  as  of  the  nation,  into  the  ranks  of  the  Puritans,  there  were  among 
them  many  who  were  sincerely  attached  to  Episcopacy,  and  who  desired 
nothing  moi'e  than  the  correction  of  the  abuses  of  that  system.  With  these, 
the  Presbyterian  Puritans  were  generally  disposed  to  make  common  cause, 
and  to  settle  the  Church,  on  the  plan  of  what  was  called  "  primitive  Episco- 
pacy ;"  according  to  which  the  bishop  was  little  more  than  the  presiding  of- 
ficer of  a  Presbytery,  an  episcopus  prseses,  and  not  episcopus  princeps  having 
the  sole  power  of  ordination  and  discipline.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
their  decided  preference  for  their  own  plan  of  government ;  and  it  accounts 
for  the  statement  so  often  made  by  historians,  that  the  parliament  had  at  first 
no  design  to  overturn  the  hierarchy,  and  that  the  majority  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  at  first,  were  favourable  to  moderate  Episcopacy.  This  may 
be  very  true,  when  they  had  to  answer  the  question,  What  church  discipline 
is  best  suited  to  the  present  state  of  England,  so  nearly  equally  divided  be- 
tween Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians  ?  But  when  called  to  answer  the 
question,  Which  system  is  the  best  and  most  agreeable  to  Scripture  ?  their 
answer  was  very  different.  The  early  and  decisive  votes  in  the  House  of 
Commons  against  the  continuance  of  Episcopacy,  the  zeal  with  which  parlia- 
ment, the  Assembly,  and  the  majority  of  the  people,  declared  in  favor  of  Pres- 
byterianism,  when  all  hope  of  an  accommodation  with  the  Episcopal  party  was 
at  an  end,  shows  clearly  what  their  opinions  and  preferences  were. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  29 

ferent  ecclesiastical  organizations  could  exist  without  producing  con- 
fusion and  difficulty.  This  union  between  Presbyterians  and  Con- 
gregationalists  was,  doubtless,  the  more  readily  effected,  inasmuch 
as  with  the  exception  of  the  first  colony  from  Holland,  the  emigrants 
had  not  enjoyed  any  separate  ecclesiastical  organization  at  home. 
They  were  almost  all  members  of  the  established  church.  The 
ministers  were,  with  rare  exceptions,  beneficed  clergymen  of  the 
Church  of  England,  who  had  been  suspended  for  want  of  conform- 
ity, generally,  in  relation  to  matters  of  ceremony.  Whatever, 
therefore,  might  have  been  their  individual  preferences,  they  had 
not  become  wedded  by  habit  to  any  particular  sytem. 

It  might  be  confidently  inferred  from  the  opinions  of  the  Eng- 
lish Puritans,  as  stated  above,  and  from  the  circumstances  which 
led  to  their  emigration,  during  the  reigns  of  James  I.  and  Charles 
I.,  that  many  of  them  would  bring  with  them  a  preference  for  Pres- 
byterianism.  It  is  estimated  that  about  twenty-one  thousand  two 
hundred  emigrants  arrived  in  New  England  before  1640.*  Cotton 
Mather  tells  us  that  previous  to  that  same  year  four  thousand  Pres- 
byterians had  arrived. f  In  another  place,  when  speaking  of  the 
union  effected  between  the  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  in 
London,  about  the  year  1690,  he  says,  the  same  union  and  on  the 
same  terms,  had  subsisted  between  these  two  denominations  in  New 
England,  for  "  many  decades  of  years ;"  that  is,  almost  from  the 
very  first  settlement  of  the  country.^  This  mixed  character  of  the 
people  seems  also  to  be  recognized  in  the  address  of  Increase  Ma- 
ther to  King  William.  He  begged  him  to  consider  that,  "  in  New 
England  they  differ  from  other  plantations ;  they  are  called  Con- 
gregational and  Presbyterian  ;  so  that  such  a  governor  will  not  suit 
with  the  people  of  New  England,  as  may  be  very  proper  for  other 

*  Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  415.  The  number  of  in- 
habitants in  New  England  is  said  to  have  decreased  rather  than  increased  be- 
tween 1640  and  1660.     Holmes,  vol.  i.  p.  361. 

f  Magnalia,  vol.  i.  p.  73.  From  the  connexion  in  which  this  fact  is  men- 
tioned, it  is  doubtful  whether  these  Presbyterians  were  from  England  or  Scot- 
land.    In  either  case,  their  influence  must  have  been  considerable. 

X  Magnalia,  vol.  ii.  p.  233. 


30  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

English  plantations."*  Of  the  two  thousand  Presbyterian  minis- 
ters cast  out  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  the  act  of  uniformity 
in  1662,  a  considerable  number,  it  is  said,  found  a  refuge  in  New 
England. f  The  colony  of  Connecticut,  in  writing  at  an  early 
period  to  the  lords  of  trade  and  plantations,  tells  them,  "  the  people 
here  are  Congregationalists,  large  Congregationalists,  and  moderate 
Presbyterians,  the  two  former  being  the  most  numerous."  This 
form  of  expression  evidently  implies,  that  the  latter  class  bore  a 
large  proportion  to  the  former.  The  principal  friends  and  patrons 
of  this  colony  in  England  were  Presbyterians ;  particularly  Lord 
Say,  an  original  patentee  of  the  colony,  to  whom  they  often  express 
their  obligations,  and  to  whose  influence,  and  to  that  of  the  Earl 
of  Manchester,  another  leader  of  the  Presbyterian  party,  they  were 
in  a  great  measure  indebted  for  the  restoration  of  their  charter.^ 
Trumbull,  speaking  of  the  Assembly  which  drew  up  the  Saybrook 
Platform,  says,  "  Though  the  council  were  unanimous  in  passing  the 
platform  of  discipline,  yet  they  were  not  all  of  one  opinion.  Some 
were  for  high  consociational  government,  and  in  their  sentiments 
nearly  Presbyterians ;  others  were  much  more  moderate  and  rather 
verging  on  Independency. "§  The  result  of  their  labours  proves 
that  the  former  class  had  greatly  the  ascendency. 

The  influence  of  Presbyterian  principles  in  New  England  is,  how- 
ever, much  more  satisfactorily  proved  by  the  nature  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical systems  which  were  there  adopted,  than  by  any  statements  of  iso- 
lated facts.  These  systems  were  evidently  the  result  of  compromise 
between  two  parties,  and  they  show  that  the  Presbyterian  was  much 
stronger  than  the  Independent  element.  The  two  leading  points  of 
difference  between  Presbyterianism  and  Congregationalism,  particu- 
larly as  the  latter  exists  at  present,  relate  to  the  mode  of  government 
within  the  congregation,  whether  it  should  be  by  elders  or  the  brother- 
hood, and  to  the  authority  of  Synods.  As  to  both  these  points 
the  early  discipline  of  the  New  England  churches  approached  much 
nearer  to  Presbyterianism  than  it  does  at  present.     Elders,  indeed, 

*  Magnalia,  vol.  i.  p.  180. 

f  Holmes's  American  Annals,  vol.  i.  p.  384. 

X  Trumbull's  History  of  Connecticut,  vol.  i.  p.  248.        §  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  487. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  31 

were  a  regular  part  of  the  organization  of  the  churches  of  the  In- 
dependents, even  when  totally  disconnected  with  Presbyterians.  A 
tendency,  however,  soon  manifested  itself  on  the  part  of  the  brethren 
to  dispense  with  their  services,  and  take  the  keys  into  their  own 
hands.*  Mr.  Wilson,  one  of  the  first  ministers  of  Boston,  lamented, 
on  his  death-bed,  as  among  the  sins  of  the  people,  opposition  to 
elders,  and  "  the  making  light  of,  and  not  subjecting  to  the  author- 
ity of  Synods,  without  which  the  churches  cannot  long  subsist."! 
The  venerable  Eliot  entertained  the  same  opinions.  "  There  were 
specially  two  things,  which  he  was  loth  to  see,  and  yet  feared  he 
saw,  falling  in  the  churches  of  New  England ;  one  was  a  thorough 
establishment  of  ruling  elders  in  our  churches;"  and  the  other  "a 
frequent  repetition  of  needful  Synods.  "J  In  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form, which  was  drawn  up  in  1648,  it  is  said,  "  The  ruling  elder's 
office  is  distinct  from  the  office  of  pastor  and  teacher."  He  is  "  to 
join  with  the  pastor  and  teacher  in  those  acts  of  spiritual  rule,  which 
are  distinct  from  the  ministry  of  the  word  and  sacraments  committed 
to  them,"  &c.  In  a  subsequent  Synod,  it  was  agreed,  1.  "The 
power  of  church  government  belongs  only  to  the  elders  of  the 
Church."  2.  "  There  are  certain  cases,  wherein  the  elders  in  their 
management  of  their  church  government,  are  to  take  the  concur- 
rence of  the  fraternity ;"  namely,  in  elections,  and  admissions,  and 
censures.  3.  "  The  elders  of  the  church  are  to  have  a  negative  on 
the  votes  of  the  brethren,"  &c. 

As  to  Synods,  the  Cambridge  Platform  denies  to  them  in  sec.  iv. 
ch.  16,  the  right  to  perform  any  act  of  "  church  authority  or  juris- 
diction ;"  but  adds  in  sec.  v.,  "  The  Synod's  directions  and  determi- 
nations, so  far  as  consonant  to  the  word  of  God,  are  to  be  received 
with  reverence  and  submission,  not  only  for  their  agreement  there- 
with (which  is  the  principal  ground  thereof,  and  without  which  they 
bind  not  at  all,)  but  also  secondarily,  for  the  power  whereby  they 
are  made,  as  being  an  ordinance  of  God  appointed  thereunto  in 

*  "  I  came  from  England,"  said  one  of  the  early  inhabitants  of  Boston,  "be- 
cause I  did  not  like  the  lord-bishops  ;  but  I  cannot  join  you  because  I  would  not 
bo  under  the  lord-brethren."     Magnalia,  vol.  i.  p.  221. 

t  Ibid.  p.  285.  X  Ibid.  p.  501. 


A2  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

in  his  -word."  This  is  very  near  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  'which 
teaches  that  the  decisions  of  Synods  are  binding  on  those  voluntarily 
connected  with  them,  when  made  in  reference  to  things  within  their 
jurisdiction,  and  not  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  or  any  constitu- 
tional stipulations.  The  subsequent  Assembly  which  met  at  Cam- 
bridge, carried  the  power  of  Synods  fully  up  to  the  Presbyterian 
doctrine,  if  not  beyond  it.  The  second  proposition  on  this  subject, 
determined  in  that  body,  is  in  these  words  :  "  Synods  duly  composed 
of  messengers  chosen  by  them,  whom  they  are  to  represent,  and 
proceeding  with  a  due  regard  to  the  will  of  God  in  his  word,  are  to 
be  reverenced  as  determining  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  concerning 
things  necessaiy  to  be  received  and  practised,  in  order  to  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  churches  therein  represented."  The  third  proposition 
is,  "  Synods  being  of  apostolic  example,  recommended  as  a  neces- 
sary ordinance,  it  is  but  reasonable  that  their  judgment  be  acknow- 
ledged as  decisive,  [in  or  of]  the  affairs  for  which  the}7  are  ordained  ; 
and  to  deny  them  the  power  of  such  judgment  is  to  render  a 
necessary  ordinance  of  none  affect."*  Here  it  is  evident  that  the 
Presbyterial  element  in  those  churches  predominated. f  May  it  not 
without  offence  be  asked,  whether  it  would  not  have  been  better, 
in  conformity  with  this  doctrine,  to  allow  the  church  to  govern  itself, 
instead  of  referring  so  much  power  to  the  civil  magistrate,  as  was 
done  by  the  great  and  pious  men  who  founded  Massachusetts  ? 
Their  memory  deserves  to  be  held  in  perpetual  veneration,  and  their 
errors  should  be  treated  as  the  errors  of  a  parent.  Filial  piety, 
however,  permits  us   to  learn  wisdom  from  the  mistakes  of   our 

*  Magnalia,  vol.  ii.  p.  213,  and  also  200  and  201. 

|  "  Under  the  first  charter  (of  Massachusetts),  Synods  for  suppressing  errors 
in  principles  or  immoralities  in  practice,  or  for  establishing  or  reforming 
church  government  and  order,  had  been  frequent ;  but  under  the  new  chattel 
no  Synod  had  been  convened."  An  attempt  was  made  to  have  one  called  in 
1725,  but  "  opposition  was  made  to  the  measure  by  the  Episcopal  ministers, 
who  applied  to  England  for  its  prevention.  In  the  absence  of  the  King,  the 
lords-justices  sent  over  instruction  to  surcease  all  proceedings ;  and  the  lieu- 
tenant-governor received  a  reprimand  for  '  giving  his  consent  to  a  vote  of  refer- 
ence and  neglecting  to  transmit  an  account  of  so  remarkable  a  transaction.' 
The  proposal  was  therefore  relinquished  ;  and  no  subsequent  attempt  has  been 
made  for  a  Synod."     Holmes's  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  115. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  33 

fathers.  Those  excellent  men  ought  not  to  be  quoted,  as  is  so  often 
done  in  our  days,  as  the  advocates  of  the  independence  of  each  sepa- 
rate congregation.  They  had  suffered  so  much  from  the  tyranny  of 
ecclesiastical  rulers  at  home,  that  they  went  to  the  extreme  of  denying 
to  church  courts,  armed  with  nothing  but  moral  and  spiritual  cen- 
sures, their  legitimate  authority.  But  feeling  the  necessity  for  some 
authority  superior  to  that  of  a  single  congregation  over  itself,  they 
devolved  it  upon  the  magistrate.  The  Cambridge  Platform,  which 
denies  the  binding  force  of  the  decisions  of  a  Synod,  declares  that 
not  only  idolatry  and  blasphemy,  but  heresy  and  open  contempt  of 
the  word  preached,  "  are  to  be  restrained  and  punished  by  the  civil 
authority."  And  further,  "  If  any  church,  one  or  more,  shall  grow 
schism  atical,  rending  itself  from  the  communion  of  other  churches, 
or  shall  walk  incorrigibly  and  obstinately  in  any  corrupt  way  of 
their  own,  contrary  to  the  rule  of  the  word ;  in  such  case  the 
magistrate  is  to  put  forth  his  coercive  power,  as  the  matter  shall  re- 
quire." The  very  same  rules,  enforced  by  mere  ecclesiastical  cen- 
sures, which  the  Presbyterian  Synod  were  so  much  reproached  for 
making,  and  which  led  to  the  schism  of  1741,  were  made  in  Con- 
necticut by  the  legislature  and  enforced  by  civil  penalties.*  The 
controversy,  therefore,  between  the  fathers  of  the  New  England 
churches,  and  those  of  the  American  Presbyterians,  would  be  not 
as  to  the  necessity  of  a  general  authority  in  the  Church,  but  as  to 
where  it  should  be  lodged. 

The  churches  of  Connecticut  appear  to  have  had,  from  the  begin- 
ning, more  of  a  Presbyterian  influence  among  them  than  those 
of  Massachusetts.  Hooker,  the  patriarch  of  Connecticut,  said 
with  great  earnestness  shortly  before  his  death,  "  we  must  settle 
the  consociation  of  churches,  or  else  we  are  undone,  "f  He  also, 
it  appears,  laid  peculiar  stress  on  the  importance  of  ruling  elders.! 
The  Saybrook  Platform,  accordingly,  comes  much  nearer  to  the 
Presbyterian  model  than  that  of  Cambridge.  The  former  declares, 
1.  "  That  the  elder  or  elders  of  a  particular  church,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  brethren  of  the  same,  have  power,  and  ought  to  exercise 
church  discipline  according  to  the  rule  of  God's  word,  in  relation 

*  Trumbull,  vol.  ii.  p.  163.     f  Ibid,  vol.  i.  p.  479.      \  Magnalia,  vol.  i.  p.  310. 

d 


34  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURC  II 

to  all  scandals  that  fall  out  within  the  same,"  &c.  2.  "  That  the 
churches  which  are  neighbouring  to  each  other,  shall  consociate  for 
mutual  affording  to  each  other  such  assistance  as  may  be  requisite, 
on  all  occasions  ecclesiastical,"  &c.  3.  "That  all  cases  of  scandal, 
that  shall  fall  out  within  any  one  of  the  aforesaid  consociations,  shall 
be  brought  to  a  council  of  elders,  and  also  messengers  of  the 
churches  within  the  said  circuit,  i.  e.  the  churches  of  one  consocia- 
tion, if  they  see  cause  to  send  messengers  when  there  shall  be  need 
of  a  council  for  the  determination  of  them."  Art.  5  declares, 
"  That  when  any  case  is  orderly  brought  before  any  council  of  the 
churches,  it  shall  be  heard  and  determined,  which  (unless  orderly 
removed  from  thence),  shall  be  a  final  issue  ;  and  all  parties  therein 
concerned  shall  sit  down  and  be  determined  thereby."  "If  any 
pastor  or  church  doth  obstinately  refuse  a  due  attendance  and  con- 
formity to  the  determination  of  the  council,"  after  due  patience, 
"  they  are  to  be  reported  guilty  of  a  scandalous  contempt,  and  dealt 
with  as  the  rule  of  God's  word  in  such  case  doth  provide,  and  the 
sentence  of  non-communion  shall  be  declared  against  such  pastor 
and  church."  In  giving,  therefore,  the  exercise  of  discipline  to  the 
pastors  and  elders,  and  in  making  the  determinations  of  councils 
definitive  and  binding,  on  pain  of  non-communion,  the  Saybrook 
Platform,  unanimously  approved  by  the  Assembly  which  prepared 
it  in  1708,  and  adopted  by  the  legislature  as  the  discipline  of  the 
churches  established  by  law,  comes  very  little  short  of  Presbyterian- 
ism.  It  is  very  evident,  as  this  Platform  was  a  compromise  be- 
tween two  parties,  being  less  than  the  one,  and  more  than  the  other 
wished  to  see  adopted,  that  one  party  must  have  been  thorough  Pres- 
byterians. That  they  were,  moreover,  the  stronger  of  the  two,  is 
evident  from  the  Platform  approaching  so  much  nearer  to  their 
system,  than  to  that  of  the  Independents. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  most  unfounded  assumption  that  the  Puritans 
were  all  Congregationalists,  or  that  the  emigrants  from  England  or 
the  New  England  colonies,  who  joined  our  church,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  were  disaffected  to  our  form  of  government.* 

*  At  a  later  period,  Presbyterian  sentiments,  it  is  believed,  were  very  pre- 
valent among  the  clergy  of  New  England.     President  Edwards,  and  his  son 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  35 

Though  New  England  was  the  hotne  of  the  Puritans,  they  did 
not  confine  themselves  to  that  region  of  country.  With  the  adven 
turous  spirit  which  has  always  been  one  of  their  leading  character- 
istics, they  extended  at  an  early  period,  their  settlements  in  various 
directions.  Long  Island,  from  its  proximity  to  Connecticut,  was 
soon  occupied  by  emigrants  from  the  older  colonies,  and  by  settlers 
direct  from  England.  The  Dutch  having  occupied  the  western 
end  of  the  island,  these  English  settlements  were  principally  to- 
wards the  central  and  eastern  portions.  Before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  last  century  several  churches  had  been  organized, 
whose  ministers,  in  many  instances,  were  from  England.* 

the  President  of  Union  College,  Dr.  Strong,  of  Hartford,  Dr.  Dwight,  are  all 
understood  to  have  adopted  those  sentiments.  And,  indeed,  it  has  often  been 
said  by  New  England  men,  that  the  great  majority  of  the  clergy  in  that  region 
of  country  would  gladly  see  Presbyterianism  adopted  among  them ;  but  that 
the  people,  as  might  be  expected,  were  opposed  to  it.  There  has,  however,  no 
doubt  been  a  great  change  in  the  opinions  of  the  ministers  on  this  subject 
within  the  last  ten  years. 

*  The  church  at  South  Hampton  was  originally  formed  at  Lynn,  Massa- 
chusetts, and  consisted  of  Rev.  Abraham  Pierson,  from  Yorkshire  in  Eng- 
land, and  some  other  persons.  They  removed  to  Long  Island  and  settled  the 
town  of  South  Hampton,  in  1640.  Hazard's  MS.,  who  quotes  Winthrop,  p. 
204.  This  Mr.  Pierson,  who  was  a  Presbyterian,  removed  with  his  people  to 
Connecticut,  and  thence  to  Newark,  N.  J.  See  MS.  History  of  Newark,  by 
Dr.  McWhorter.  The  first  permanent  minister  of  South  Hampton  was,  ac- 
cording to  MS.  History  of  the  church,  Rev.  Joseph  Eordham,  from  England. 
This  congregation  placed  itself  under  the  care  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia in  1716.     See  Minutes. 

The  first  settlement  of  East  Hampton  was  in  1649.  Most  of  the  inhabitants 
came  from  England ;  some  were  from  Salem,  and  some  from  New  Haven. 
About  1660,  Rev.  Thomas  James  became  their  pastor.     MS.  History. 

The  first  minister  of  Southold  was  Rev.  John  Young,  from  England,  who 
was  settled  about  1652.  Their  next  minister,  Rev.  Joshua  Hobert,  was  also 
from  England.     MS.  History. 

Huntingdon  was  settled  by  a  number  of  people  from  England,  and  by  emi- 
grants from  New  England.  The  first  minister  was  Rev.  Eliphalet  Jones,  a 
Congregationalist  from  New  England.  "  The  Church  of  Huntingdon  appears 
to  have  been  conducted  on  the  Congregational  plan  until  April  Sth,  1747, 
when  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Ebenezer  Gould,  Nathaniel  Mather,  Ebenezer  Prime, 
Sylvanus  White,  and  Samuel  Buell,  agreeably  to  previous  appointment   met 


36  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

Smith,  in  his  History  of  New  York,  written  in  1756,  gives  the 
following  account  of  the  inhabitants  of  Long  Island,  at  that  period. 
In  King's  county,  opposite  New  York,  "  the  inhabitants  are  all 
Dutch."  In  Queen's  county  "  the  inhabitants  are  divided  into 
Dutch  and  English,  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians,  and  Quakers." 
Suffolk  county,  "except  one  small  Episcopal  congregation,  consists 
entirely  of  English  Presbyterians."* 

The  Puritans  do  not  appear  to  have  made  much  impression  upon 
New  York  before  the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  but  in  East 
Jersey  their  settlements  were  numerous  and  important.  In  16(34, 
a  company  from  the  western  part  of  Long  Island  purchased  a  tract 
of  land  and  laid  out  the  town  of  Elizabethtown.  There  were, 
however,  but  four  houses  in  the  place,  when  Philip  Carteret,  in 
1665,  arrived  as  governor  of  the  province,  from  England,  bringing 
with  him  about  thirty  settlers. f     The  first  colony,  therefore,  must 

to  consult  the  interests  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
churches  under  their  care ;  and  after  much  deliberation,  they  adopted  the 
Presbyterian  form  of  government,  in  a  manner  which  does  them  much  honour 
as  Christian  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  as  may  be  seen  at  length  in  the  introduc- 
tion to  their  Presbytery  book."  MS.  History.  In  the  MS.  account  of  the 
Church  of  Bridgehampton,  it  is  said:  "The  Presbytery  of  Long  Island,  for- 
merly known  by  the  name  of  the  Presbytery  of  Suffolk,  was  constituted  or 
formed  April  3d,  1747."  There  is  a  confusion  in  these  accounts  which  it  is 
not  easy  to  clear  up.  Frequent  mention  is  made  of  a  Presbytery  of  Long 
Island,  in  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  pp.  17,  18,  and  onward ; 
and  also,  at  a  later  date,  of  a  Presbytery  of  Suffolk.  There  is,  however,  fre- 
quent inconsistency  in  names  of  the  Presbyteries  in  the  early  records.  They 
appear  sometimes  to  be  named  from  the  places  where  they  happened  to  meet. 

Jamaica  was  settled  about  1656,  chiefly  by  emigrants  from  New  England. 
The  first  minister  was  Mr.  Walker ;  the  next  Mr.  Prudden.  In  1692,  Rev. 
Mr.  Hubbard  was  called,  who,  in  Smith's  History  of  New  York,  is  always 
called  a  Presbyterian;  and  the  congregation,  through  their  long  conflict  with 
the  Episcopalians,  about  their  property,  which  the  latter  most  unjustly  endea- 
voured to  wrest  from  them,  is  styled  a  Presbyterian  church.  See  Smith's 
History.  In  1712,  Rev.  Mr.  McNish,  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, became  their  pastor. 

*  Smith's  New  York,  p.  114.  He  probably  used  the  word  Presbyterian  in 
a  wide  sense. 

f  Gordon's  History  of  New  Jersey,  p.  28. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  37 

have  been  small.  Much  about  the  same  time,  Woodbridge,  Mid- 
dletown  and  Shrewsbury  were  settled,  in  a  good  degree  by  emi- 
grants from  Long  Island  and  Connecticut.  Newark  was  settled 
in  1667  or  1668,  by  about  thirty  families  principally  from  Brand- 
ford  in  Connecticut.  As  the  New  England  Puritans  were  some 
of  them  Congregationalists  and  some  Presbyterians,  it  is  not  easy 
to  ascertain  to  which  class  the  emigrants  to  East  Jersey  belonged. 
It  is  probable  that  some  preferred  the  one  form  of  church  disci- 
pline, and  some  the  other.  Those  who  settled  at  Newark  were 
Presbyterians.  The  Rev.  Abraham  Pierson  was,  it  is  believed, 
episcopally  ordained  in  England,  whence  he  emigrated  to  this  coun- 
try with  a  number  of  followers.  After  several  previous  attempts 
at  settlement,  they  fixed  themselves  at  Brandford,  in  Connecticut. 
Being  dissatisfied,  however,  with  the  union  between  the  colonies  of 
New  Haven  and  Connecticut,  they  removed  to  Newark.  After 
continuing  the  pastor  of  the  church  there  for  about  twenty  years, 
Mr.  Pierson  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  who  was  subsequently  ap- 
pointed the  first  president  of  Yale  College.  "  These  two  minis- 
ters, tradition  relates,  were  moderate  Presbyterians,  but  the  son 
more  especially.  He  had  imbibed  moderate  Presbyterianism  from 
his  father,  and  when  at  Cambridge  College,  he  had  received  strong 
prejudices  against  Plymothean  independency  ;  and  after  his  fathei's 
death  he  was  for  introducing  more  rigid  Presbyterianism  into  New- 
ark."* It  appears,  from  the  narrative  just  quoted,  that  this 
attempt  of  the  younger  Pierson  was  sustained  by  some  Scotch 
members  of  the  congregation,  and  opposed  by  others  recently  from 
Connecticut,  who  were  in  favour  of  the  Saybrook  Platform.  It  is 
probable  that  this  difficulty  led  to  Mr.  Pierson's  removal.  In 
1715,  the  church  of  Newark  appears  in  connexion  with  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia.! 

*  MS.  History  of  Newark  by  Dr.  McWhorter.  The  doctor  says  that  an 
aged  elder,  then  eighty-six,  stated  that  there  had  been  a  church  session  in 
Newark  from  the  earliest  time  he  could  remember,  and  that  he  always  under- 
stood there  was  one  from  the  beginning. 

f  The  township  of  Woodbridge  was  settled  from  1660  to  1665.  "  The  in- 
habitants were  emigrants  from  Scotland,  but  principally  from  New  England.' 


38  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

The  Puritans  were  not  very  successful  in  their  attempts  to  form 
settlements  upon  the  Delaware.  In  1640,  the  colony  of  New 
Haven  made  a  large  purchase  on  both  sides  of  that  river  and  sent 
out  about  fifty  families  to  make  a  settlement.*  As  this  country, 
however,  was  covered  by  a  previous  claim  of  the  Dutch,  the  trad- 
ing establishments  of  the  New  Haven  colony  were  broken  up  by 
the  Hollanders,  and  the  people  scattered.  In  1669,  application 
was  made  by  New  Haven  to  the  commissioners  of  the  united  colo- 
nies to  make  plantations  on  the  Delaware,  but  the  proposal  was 
declined ;  and  it  was  left  to  the  New  Haven  merchants  to  dispose 
of  the  land  which  they  had  purchased,  or  to  plant  it  as  they  should 
see  cause. f  Some  permanent  settlements,  however,  at  a  subse- 
quent period,  were  made  upon  the  Jersey  side  of  the  Delaware. 
Fairfield,  for  example,  was  settled  about  1690,  by  a  number  of 
persons  from  the  town  of  the  same  name  in  Connecticut.  This 
fact  is  ascertained  from  the  law  creating  the  township  of  Fairfield, 
passed  in  1697.  Cape  May  was  also  a  Puritan  settlement,  of 
which  their  records  contain  indubitable  evidence. 

In  the  southern  colonies,  there  are  here  and  there  traces  of 
Puritan  settlements,  but  not  sufficient  either  in  number  or  extent, 
to  exert  much  influence  on  the  character  of  the  rising  population. 
Maryland  was  at  first  a  Catholic  colony,  but  being  settled  upon 
the  principles  of  general  toleration,  the  number  of  Protestants 
soon   greatly  exceeded  that  of  the  Romanists.      Lord  Baltimore 

Their  first  pastor  was  Rev.  Mr.  Wade,  of  whom  so  much  is  said  in  the  early 
minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia.  In  1714,  they  invited  Mr.  John 
Pierson  from  Connecticut,  who  remained  with  them  forty  years.  It  was  in 
his  time,  and  by  his  influence,  that  this  congregation  obtained  a  roj'al  charter 
of  incorporation  under  the  name  and  title  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church 
in  Woodbridge ;  and  did  then  take  legal  possession  of  the  tract  of  land  given 
by  the  proprietors  of  the  province  for  a  parsonage  at  the  first  settlement  of 
the  town.  During  Mr.  Pierson's  time  there  was  no  session  in  this  church. 
He  managed  the  affairs  of  the  congregation  without  elders."  MS.  History  of 
Woodbridge. 

*  Trumbull's  History  of  Connecticut,  vol.  i.  119.  Gordon  thinks  the  num 
ber  of  settlers  much  overrated.     History  of  New  Jersey,  p.  18. 

t  Holmes's  Annals,  vol.  i.  348. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  39 

kt  invited  the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts  to  emigrate  to  Maryland, 
offering  them  land,  and  privileges,  and  'free  liberty  to  religion;' 
but  Gibbons,  to  whom  he  had  forwarded  a  commission,  was  '  so 
wholly  in  the  New  England  discipline,'  that  he  would  not  advance 
the  wishes  of  the  Irish  peer ;  and  the  people,  who  subsequently 
refused  Jamaica  and  Ireland,  were  not  now  tempted  to  desert  the 
Bay  of  Massachusetts  for  the  Chesapeake."*  The  Protestant 
population  which  so  soon  gained  the  ascendency  in  Maryland,  were 
no  doubt  of  various  religious  sentiments.  It  would  seem,  however, 
that  the  Episcopalians  predominated,  either  in  number  or  influence, 
since  when  the  bishop  of  London  sent  over  his  commissary  in 
1692,  the  provincial  assembly  divided  the  colony  into  thirty 
parishes,  sixteen  of  which  were  supplied  with  ministers  and  pro- 
vided with  livings. f 

Virginia  was  so  completely  an  Episcopal  province,  and  the  laws 
against  all  non-conformists  were  so  severe,  that  we  can  expect  but 
few  traces  of  the  Puritans  in  her  early  history.  Unity  of  worship 
was  there  preserved,  with  few  exceptions,  for  a  century  after  the 
settlement  of  Jamestown. |  There  were,  however,  some  Puritan 
families  in  the  colony  from  the  beginning,  and  others  arrived  at  a 
later  period,  and  there  were  also  a  few  settlers  from  Massachusetts. 
As  early,  however,  as  1633,  severe  laws  were  made  for  the  sup- 
pression of  Dissenters,  who  had  begun  to  appear  in  the  colony. § 
In   1613,   it   was   ordered,    "  that    no    minister   should   preach   or 

*  Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  253. 

t  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  12.  Bancroft  in  his  account  of  Maryland,  uses  the 
word  Puritan  for  Protestant,  as  he  applies  it  to  all  who  opposed  the  Catholics, 
and  unjustly  disfranchised  them.  During  the  time  of  the  Long  Parliament 
and  of  Cromwell,  these  people  seem  indeed  to  have  been  Puritans  in  the  Eng- 
lish sense  of  the  word.  They  passed  an  act  confirming  liberty  of  conscience 
provided  it  did  not  extend  to  "Popery,  Prelacy,  or  licentiousness"  of  opinions. 
As  the  Independents  pride  themselves  on  being  the  earliest  friends  of  libeity 
of  conscience,  it  is  probable  they  will  not  aspire  to  the  honour  of  being  the 
authors  of  that  act.  The  mention  of  Prelacy  and  licentiousness  of  opinion 
seems  to  indicate  rather  that  class  of  Puritans,  who,  in  England,  were  opposed 
equally  to  bishops  and  sectaries. 

X  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  190.  \  Holmes,  vol.  i.  p.  269. 


40  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

teach  publicly  or  privately,  except  in  conformity  to  the  constitu- 
tions of  the  Church  of  England,  and  non-conformists  were  banished 
from  the  colony."*  A  Congregational  church  had  been  gathered 
by  the  labours  of  ministers  from  New  England,  and  increased  in 
16 48  to  the  number  of  one  hundred  and  eighteen  persons ;  but  the 
governor,  who  had  already  banished  its  elder,  now  enjoined  on  Mr. 
Harrison  its  pastor  to  depart  from  the  country,  f  During  the  time 
of  Cromwell,  a  spirit  of  greater  moderation  prevailed  ;  but  on  the 
restoration  of  Charles  II.,  the  assembly  revived  all  the  laws  against 
separatists.  Strict  conformity  was  demanded,  and  every  one  was 
required  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  established  church. 
The  whole  liturgy  was  to  be  read,  and  no  non-conformists  might 
teach  either  in  public  or  private,  on  pain  of  banishment.  In  1663 
these  laws  were  made  still  more  severe.  Attendance  on  the  meet- 
ings of  non-conformists  was  punished  by  severe  fines,  and  the  rich 
were  obliged  to  pay  the  forfeitures  of  their  poorer  brethren.  Ship- 
masters were  punished  if  they  brought  dissenters  into  the  colony. | 
The  separatists  against  whom  these  laws  seem  to  have  been  mainly 
directed,  were  Quakers  and  Baptists.  It  was  not  until  after  the 
commencement  of  the  eighteenth  century,  that  other  denominations 
than  the  Episcopal  obtained  permanent  footing  in  Virginia,  pro- 
tected by  the  English  toleration  act.  The  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  Atlantic  portion  of  the  State  was,  in  a  great  measure,  built  up 
by  those  who  had  been  previously  Episcopalians;  and  in  the  por- 
tion beyond  the  mountains,  by  the  Scotch-Irish  emigrants  from 
Pennsylvania. 

Under  the  name  of  Carolina,  Charles  II.  granted  to  the  Earl  of 
Clarendon  and  his  associates,  the  district  of  country  between  Vir- 
ginia and  Florida,  and  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific.  When 
the  first  emigrants  sent  out  by  the  proprietors  arrived,  they  found 
a  small  colony  of  New  England  men  already  established  on  the 
south  side  of  the  Cape  Fear  river.  This  colony,  however,  did  not 
prosper,  and  although  it  received  some  accessions  from  New  Eng- 
land, the  people  were  soon  nearly  absorbed  in  the  colonies  estab- 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  i.  p.  207.  f  Holmes,  vol.  i.  p.  346. 

X  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  200. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  41 

lished  by  emigrants  from  Barbadoes  and  the  Bermudas.*  The 
earliest  settlers  of  this  part  of  Carolina  were  principally  refugees 
from  Virginia;  men  who  endeavoured  to  escape  from  the  oppres- 
sive laws  of  that  province  against  all  non-conformists.  They  were 
probably  mostly  Quakers ;  at  least  the  earliest  religious  teachers 
and  meetings  were  in  connexion  with  their  society.  As  Puritans, 
when  sufficiently  numerous,  were  seldom  long  without  the  regular 
ministrations  of  the  Gospel,  the  fact  that  there  was  no  stated  min- 
ister in  North  Carolina  before  1704,  and  no  church  until  1705,  f 
proves  that  their  influence  was  very  small.  • 

South  Carolina  was  settled  about  1670,  under  the  direction  of 
the  proprietors.  The  first  colony  came  from  England  with  the 
governor,  "  William  Sayle,  who  was  probably  a  Presbyterian  ;"  the 
people,  however,  it  is  presumed  were  principally  Episcopalians. 
The  country  was  rapidly  filled  up  with  settlers  from  various  quar- 
ters, but  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Puritans  as  among  the  early 
colonists,  except  that  a  church  organized  in  Dorchester,  Massachu- 
setts, removed  in  1696  and  settled  on  the  Ashley  river.J  Rev. 
John  Cotton,  from  Plymouth,  son  of  the  celebrated  John  Cotton 
of  Boston,  removed  to  Charleston  in  1698,  and  gathered  a  church 
there. §  At  an  earlier  period,  1683,  Blake,  brother  of  the  famous 
admiral,  brought  over  from  Somersetshire  a  company  of  dissenters 
who  settled  in  Charleston. ||  To  what  denomination  they  belonged 
is  not  mentioned.  The  predominant  influence  in  South  Carolina, 
either  from  the  number  of  its  adherents,  or  from  their  influence, 
was  with  the  church  of  England,  which  in  1703  was  established  by 
law.  I  have  thus  endeavoured  to  trace  the  influence  of  the  Puri- 
tans, beyond  the  limits  of  New  England,  in  the  early  settlement  of 
our  country.  It  appears  they  were  predominant  on  Long  Island, 
numerous  in  East  Jersey,  few  and  scattered  on  the  Delaware,  and 
dotted  at  certain  distant  intervals  along  the  southern  coast. 

The  Dutch  come  next  under  consideration,  for  although  they 
have  been  so  numerous  as  to  form  by  themselves,  a  distinct  eccle- 
siastical organization,  yet  being  Calvinists  and  Presbyterians,  they 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  pp.  137,  151.  t  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  164. 

X  Holmes  vol.  ii.  p.  34.  \  Ibid.  42.  ||  Bancroft,  ii.  172. 


42  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

have  in  many  parts  of  the  country  entered  largely  into  the  mate- 
rials of  which  our  church  is  composed.  It  was  by  the  Dutch  that 
the  Hudson,  the  Connecticut,  and  probably  the  Delaware  rivers 
were  discovered.  In  1613,  they  erected  a  few  huts  upon  Manhat- 
tan Island ;  and  in  1623,  a  more  permanent  establishment  was 
there  effected.  They  built  a  fort  on  the  Delaware,  and  another  on 
the  Connecticut,  laying  claim  to  all  the  intervening  country.  In 
1629  and  1630,  they  purchased  the  land  on  both  sides  of  the  Dela- 
ware, and  commenced  a  settlement  near  Lewistown.  In  1638,  the 
Swedes  arrived  and  purchased  the  land  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Delaware  to  Trenton,  and  established  themselves  on  Christiana 
creek.  Several  successive  bodies  of  emigrants  having  arrived  from 
Sweden,  they  extended  their  settlements  as  far  as  where  Philadel- 
phia now  stands. 

The  few  English  families,  emigrants  from  New  England,  who 
had  been  allured  thither  by  the  climate  or  the  facilities  for  traffic 
with  the  Indians,  were  either  driven  away  or  submitted  to  the 
Swedes.*  The  Dutch  viewed  these  colonists  as  intruders,  and  in 
order  to  maintain  their  claim  to  the  soil  established  themselves,  in 
1651,  at  New  Castle.  The  Swedes,  in  1654,  attacked  and  reduced 
that  settlement,  but  were  themselves  in  the  following  year  con- 
quered by  the  Dutch,  who  became  complete  masters  of  the  Dela- 
ware, f  In  the  mean  time  the  Dutch  settlements  were  rapidly  ex- 
tended along  the  Hudson,  as  high  as  Albany  and  the  western  end 
of  Long  Island.  In  New  Jersey  they  had  settlements  in  Bergen, 
around  Newark,  on  the  banks  of  the  Raritan,  near  Shrewsbury,  and 
were  mixed  with  other  settlers  in  various  parts  of  the  eastern  sec- 
tion of  the  State.  When  the  Dutch  possessions  were  conquered 
by  the  English,  in  1664,  the  number  of  inhabitants  was  probably 
not  far  from  ten  thousand.  The  Dutch  were  also  among  the  early 
settlers  of  Maryland. |  And  in  1671,  almost  immediately  after 
the  settlement  of   Charleston,  South  Carolina,  two  ships  arrived 

*  Bancroft,  ii.  288. 

f  The  Swedes  amounted  to  about  seven  hundred,  when  conquered  by  the 
Dutch.     Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  298. 
X  Bancroft,  vol.  i.  p.  236. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  43 

there   with   Dutch   emigrants   from   New  York,   who   were   subse- 
quently followed  by  others  of  their  countrymen  from  Holland.* 

The  German  emigrants,  though  never  forming  a  distinct  govern- 
ment, as  was  the  case,  not  only  with  the  Dutch,  but  even  with  the 
Swedes,  were  far  more  numerous  than  either,  and  have  exerted  a 
powerful  influence  on  the  character  of  our  country.  Gov.  Hunter 
of  New  York  brought  over  with  him,  in  1730,  three  thousand 
German  emigrants,  who  had  fled  to  England  to  escape  the  persecu- 
tion which  they  suffered  in  their  own  country. f  They  also  formed 
a  settlement  to  the  west  of  Albany,  on  the  German  Flats.  Their 
emigration  to  Pennsylvania  commenced  as  early  as  1682  or  1683, 
when  Germantown  was  settled  by  them.  In  subsequent  years  they 
came  in  such  numbers,  that  it  was  estimated  in  1772,  that  one  third 
of  the  population  of  the  province,  which  was  then  between  200,000 
and  300,000,  consisted  of  them  and  their  descendants. J  In  the 
year  1749,  twelve  thousand  German  emigrants  arrived,  and  for 
several  years  nearly  the  same  number  arrived  annually. §  From 
Pennsylvania  they  extended  themselves  into  Virginia  and  Maryland. 
Their  settlements  in  Carolina  were  also  extensive.  In  1709,  up- 
wards of  six  hundred  Germans  arrived  and  settled  Newbern,||  and 
were  probably  Swiss  Germans,  from  the  name  which  they  gave  their 
new  home.  Between  1730  and  1750,  says  Dr.  Ramsay,  South 
Carolina  received  large  accessions  from  Switzerland,  Holland,  and 
Germany ;  Orangeburg,  Congaree,  and  Wateree,  receiving  a  large 
portion  of  the  German  emigrants.  Numbers  of  Palatines  arrived 
every  year.^f  In  1764,  five  or  six  hundred  were  sent  over  from 
London,  and  had  a  separate  township  of  land  assigned  to  them.** 
And  a  few  years  later  three  hundred  families,  who  had  previously 
settled  in  Maine,  removed  and  joined  their  countrymen  who  had 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  171. 

t  Smith's  History  of  New  York,  p.  139. 

X  Proud's  History  of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  ii.  p.  273.  $  I  &id.  p.  273,  4. 

fj  Williamson's  History  of  North  Carolina,  vol.  i.  p.  184. 

If  Ramsay's  History  of  South  Carolina,  vol.  i.  p.  11. 

**  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  268. 


44  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

fixed  themselves  in  the  south-western  part  of  Carolina.*  Other 
settlements  were  made  at  an  earlier  period  in  Georgia,  f  J 

The  Welsh,  from  their  numbers,  deserve  particular  notice.  The 
principal  settlement  of  them  at  an  early  period,  was  upon  the  left 
bank  of  the  Schuylkill,  in  Pennsylvania.  They  there  occupied 
three  townships,  and  in  a  few  years  their  numbers  so  increased 
that  they  obtained  three  additional  townships. § 

The  persecutions  to  which  the  French  Protestants  were  exposed 
during  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV.,  consummated  by  the  revocation 
of  the  edict  of  Nantes  in  1685,  drove  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
those  unhappy  people  from  their  native  country.  They  found  a 
home  in  the  various  cities  of  Holland,  Germany,  and  England,  and 
large  numbers  of  them  came  to  this  country.  They  were  so 
numerous  in  Boston  as  to  have  a  church  by  themselves  in  1686. || 
In  New  York,  when  yet  under  the  dominion  of  the  Dutch,  they 
formed  so  large  a  portion  of  the  population,  that  the  laws  were 
sometimes  promulgated  in  their  language  as  well  as  in  that  of  the 
Hollanders. T  In  Richmond  county,  they  and  the  Dutch  made  up 
almost  the  entire  population  ;  and  they  were  settled  also  in  consider- 
able numbers  in  the  counties  of  Westchester  and  Ulster.**  Scat- 
tered emigrants  fixed  themselves,  in  greater  or  less  numbers,  in  the 
provinces  of  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  but  their  principal  loca- 
tion was  in  the  Southern  States.  In  1690,  King  William  sent  "  a 
large  body"  of  them  to  Virginia,  where  lands  were  assigned  them 
on  the  James  river ;  others  removed  to  Carolina  and  settled  on  the 

*   Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  306.  t  Ibid.  p.  142. 

%  With  regard  to  the  Germans  in  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Andrews,  in  a  letter 
dated  October  14,  1730,  says,  "  There  is,  besides,  in  this  province  a  vast 
number  of  Palatines,  and  they  come  in  still  every  year.  Those  that  have  come 
of  late  are  mostly  Presbyterian,  or  as  they  call  themselves,  Reformed ;  the 
Palatinate  being  about  three-fifths  of  that  sort  of  people.  There  are  many 
J-utherans  and  some  Reformed  mixed  among  them.  In  other  parts  of  the 
country,  they  are  chiefly  Reformed,  so  that  I  suppose  the  Presbyterian  party 
are  as  numerous  as  the  Quakers,  or  near  it." 

\  Proud's  History  of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  i.  p.  221. 

||  Holmes,  vol.  i.  p.  446.  1  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  302. 

**  Smith's  History  of  New  York,  pp.  213,  215,  218. 


IN     THE    UNITED     STATES.  45 

Santee.*  In  1699,  and  the  following  years,  six  hundred  more  are 
mentioned  as  settling  in  Virginia,  f  Soon  after  the  settlement  of 
Carolina,  Charles  II.  sent  two  ships  with  about  two  hundred  French 
Protestants,  to  introduce  the  culture  of  the  productions  of  the  south 
of  Europe. J  From  1685  onward,  the  number  of  French  emigrants 
to  Carolina  was  very  considerable :  "  fugitives  from  Languedoc  on 
the  Mediterranean,  from  Rochelle,  and  Saintonge,  and  Bordeaux, 
the  provinces  on  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  from  St.  Quentin,  Poictiers, 
and  the  beautiful  valley  of  Tour,  from  St.  Lo  and  Dieppe,  men  who 
had  the  virtues  of  the  English  Puritans  without  their  bigotry,  came 
to  the  country,  to  which  the  tolerant  benevolence  (?)  of  Shaftesbury 
had  invited  the  believers  of  every  creed. "§  This  emigration  con- 
tinued far  into  the  succeeding  century.  In  1752  it  is  stated  up- 
wards of  sixteen  hundred  foreign  Protestants  arrived  in  South  Caro- 
lina. j|  In  1764  two  hundred  and  twelve  arrived  from  France.^ 
The  descendants  of  these  numerous  French  Protestants  have  become 
merged  almost  entirely  in  the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  churches. 
"  The  history  of  American  colonization  is  the  history  of  the 
crimes  of  Europe."  The  Scotch  Presbyterians  had  not  escaped 
their  portion  of  the  persecutions,  which  all  opposers  of  Prelacy,  in 
Great  Britain,  experienced  during  the  reigns  of  James  II.  and 
Charles  I.  It  was  not,  however,  until  the  restoration  of  Charles 
II.  that  the  measure  of  their  wrongs  and  sorrows  was  rendered  full. 
James  had  been  educated  a  Calvinist  and  Presbyterian,  and  when 
leaving  Scotland  to  ascend  the  vacant  throne  of  Elizabeth,  he 
assured  his  countrymen  of  his  love  for  their  church,  and  of  his 
determination  to  support  it.  He  had,  however,  hardly  crossed  the 
Tweed  before  he  began  to  manifest  his  aversion  to  a  form  of  church 
discipline  which  he  regarded  as  essentially  republican.  The  sub- 
missive demeanour  of  the  English  bishops,  and  their  high  doctrine 
as  to  the  power  of  kings,  confirmed  a  conversion  which  had  already 
taken  place.     The  Scottish  presbyters  were  accustomed  to  urge  him 

*  Holmes,  vol.  i.  p.  479.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  47. 

X  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  172,  and  Dr.  Ramsay's  History  of  South  Carolina. 
§  Ibid.  p.  181.  ||  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  190. 

fl  Ramsay's  History  of  South  Carolina,  vol.  i.  p.  19. 


46  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

to  repent  of  his  sins ;  the  English  bishops,  on  their  knees,  assured 
him  he  spoke  by  the  immediate  assistance  of  God.  It  is  not 
wonderful,  therefore,  that  James  adopted  the  cause  of  the  latter, 
and  made  it  his  own.  He  knew  enough,  however,  of  the  people 
whom  he  had  left,  or  had  sufficient  respect  for  their  opinions,  to  in- 
duce him  to  proceed  with  some  degree  of  caution  in  his  attempts  to 
bring  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  Scotland  into  harmony  with  that 
of  England.  His  more  unhappy  son  determined  to  effect  at  once, 
and  by  authority,  what  his  arbitrary  but  timid  father  was  content 
to  accomplish  gradually,  and  with  some  appearance  of  co-operation 
by  the  church.  He  first  ordered  a  book  of  canons  to  be  published 
and  enforced,  on  his  own  authority  altering  essentially  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church  ;  and  then  a  liturgy,  copied  in  a  great 
measure  from  that  of  England,  but  altered  by  Laud,  so  as  to  bring 
it  into  nearer  conformity  with  the  Roman  missal.  This  he  ordered 
should  be  used  by  all  ministers  on  pain  of  suspension.  It  was 
resisted  in  all  parts  of  the  kingdom,  and  by  all  classes  of  the  people, 
from  political  as  well  as  religious  motives.  It  was  not  merely  a 
form  of  prayer,  but  an  absolute  despotism,  which  the  people  opposed. 
If  the  king,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  nation  or  the  church, 
could  introduce  the  English  liturgy,  why  not  the  Roman  mass  ? 
These  arbitrary  measures  excited  an  opposition  which  "  preserved 
the  liberties  and  overthrew  the  monarchy  of  England." 

*  Hallam,  vol,  iii.  p.  427.  This  result  might  doubtless  have  been  accom- 
plished in  some  other  way ;  for  it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  Englishmen 
could  have  been  reduced  to  a  state  of  bondage  by  such  monarchs  as  the 
Stuarts.  Still,  in  the  providence  of  God,  it  was  the  struggle  of  the  Scotch 
for  the  liberty  of  their  church,  which  was  the  means  of  preserving  the  liber- 
ties of  England.  Charles  had  succeeded  in  governing  the  latter  kingdom  for 
twelve  years  without  a  parliament.  When  the  Scotch  formed  their  national 
covenant,  that  is,  a  voluntary  agreement  to  sustain  each  other  in  resisting  the 
arbitrary  measures  of  the  king,  and  prepared  to  oppose  force  by  force, 
Charles  found  it  absolutely  necessary  to  summon  a  parliament.  The  Scutch 
being  in  arms  in  the  north,  the  friends  of  liberty  in  the  House  of  Commons 
were  emboldened  in  their  opposition  to  the  court,  and  entered  on  that  course 
which  soon  ended  in  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy  and  of  the  established 
church. 

The  Scotch  have  been  greatly,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  justly  blamed,  be- 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  47 

Unjust  as  was  the  conduct  of  this  unfortunate  monarch,  it  ap- 
pears mild  and  honourable  when  compared  with  that  of  his  son. 
Charles  II.,  at  the  time  of  his  father's  death,  was  a  friendless  fugi- 
tive. The  Scotch  offered  to  receive  him  as  their  king,  on  condi- 
tion that  he  should  pledge  himself  by  oath  to  regard  and  preserve 
their  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government.  To  this  he  as- 
sented. When  he  arrived  in  the  kingdom  he  subscribed  the  cove- 
nant ;  and  again  at  his  coronation,  under  circumstances  of  much 
more  than  usual  solemnity,  he  swore  to  preserve  it  inviolate.  The 
Scotch,  accordingly,  armed  in  his  defence;  but,  divided  among 
themselves,  and  led  by  a  general  very  unfit  to  cope  with  Cromwell, 
they  were  soon  defeated,  and  Charles  was  again  driven  to  the  con- 
tinent. When  he  returned  in  1660,  he  voluntarily  renewed  his 
promise  to  the  Scotch,  by  whom  his  restoration  had  been  greatly 
promoted,  not  to  interfere  with  the  liberty  of  their  church.  No 
sooner,  however,  was  he  firmly  seated  on  his  throne,  than  all  these 
oaths  and  promises  were  forgotten.  Presbyterianism  was  at  once 
abolished,  and  Episcopacy  established ;  not  such  as  it  was  under 
James  I.,  when  bishops  were  little  more  than  standing  moderators 

cause,  instead  of  being  satisfied  with  securing  the  liberty  of  their  own  church, 
they  insisted  on  the  overthrow  of  that  of  England.  It  should  be  remembered, 
however,  that  intolerance  was  the  epidemic  of  the  age.  The  Episcopalians 
enforced  the  prayer-book,  the  Presbyterians  the  covenant,  the  Independents 
the  engagement.  The  last  being  more  of  a  political  character  than  either  of 
the  others,  was,  so  far,  the  least  objectionable.  It  was,  however,  both  in  de- 
sign and  in  fact,  what  Neal  calls  it,  "  a  severe  test  for  the  Presbyterians." 
Besides,  the  rigid  doctrine  of  the  exclusive  divine  right  of  Presbyterianism, 
and  an  intolerant  opposition  to  Prelacy,  did  not  prevail  among  the  Scotch 
until  they  were  driven,  by  persecution,  into  extreme  opinions.  When  they 
found  Episcopacy,  in  their  own  bitter  experience,  associated  with  despotism 
and  superstition,  and,  in  their  firm  belief,  with  irreligion  and  Popery,  it  is 
not  wonderful  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  bitter  root  which  could  bear  nothing 
good.  Their  best  apology  is  that  which  they  themselves  urged  at  the  time. 
They  considered  it  essential  to  the  liberty  of  their  church  and  country  that 
the  power  of  the  bishops  should  be  destroyed  in  England.  The  persecutions 
which  they  had  already  endured,  and  their  just  apprehensions  of  still  greater 
evils,  sprang  from  the  principles  and  conduct  of  the  English  prelates.  How 
well  founded  this  opinion  was,  the  atrocities  consequent  on  the  restoration  of 
Charles  II.  and  the  re-establishment  of  Episcopacy,  abundantly  proved. 


48  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

of  the  Presbyteries,  but  invested  by  the  arbitrary  mandate  of  the 
King,  with  the  fulness  of  prelatical  power.  An  act  was  passed 
making  it  penal  even  to  speak  publicly  or  privately  against  the 
King's  supremacy,  or  the  government  of  the  church  by  archbishops 
and  bishops.  A  court  of  high  commission,  of  which  all  the  pre- 
lates were  members,  was  erected  and  armed  with  inquisitorial 
powers.  Multitudes  of  learned  and  pious  ministers  were  ejected 
from  their  parishes,  and  ignorant  and  ungodly  men,  for  the  most 
part  introduced  in  their  stead.*  Yet  the  people  were  forced,  under 
severe  penalties,  to  attend  the  ministrations  of  these  unworthy 
men.  All  ejected  ministers  were  prohibited  preaching  or  praying 
except  in  their  own  families ;  and  preaching  or  praying  in  the 
fields  was  made  punishable  with  death.  Any  one,  though  the 
nearest  relative,  who  should  shelter,  aid,  or  in  any  way  minister 

*  The  testimony  of  bishop  Burnet,  who  was  living  in  Scotland  at  the  time, 
and  had  the  best  opportunities  for  gaining  correct  information,  is  very  candid 
and  explicit  on  this  subject.  When  urged  to  accept  of  a  benefice,  he  said, 
"  that  he  would  not  engage  with  a  body  of  men,  who  seemed  to  have  the  spi- 
rit and  temper  of  inquisitors  in  them,  and  to  have  no  regard  for  religion  in 
any  of  their  proceedings." — History  of  his  own  Times,  vol.  i.  p.  228.  In 
another  place  he  says,  "  He  who  had  the  greatest  hand  in  the  change  (i.e.  arch- 
bishop Sharp)  proceeded  with  so  much  dissimulation,  and  the  rest  of  the  order 
was  so  mean  and  so  selfish,  and  the  earl  of  Middleton,  with  the  other  secu- 
lar men  who  conducted  it,  were  so  utterly  impious  and  vicious,  that  it  did 
cast  a  reproach  on  every  thing  relating  to  religion,  to  see  it  managed  by  such 
instruments."  Dr.  Cook,  in  his  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  says  of 
the  Episcopal  clergy  of  this  time :  "  The  great  majority  of  those  chosen, 
were  men  in  every  respect  despicable.     As  preachers,   they  fell  far  below 

their  predecessors Copying  the  manners  of  those  by  whom  they  were 

appointed,  they  not  only  threw  aside  the  decencies  of  the  clerical  life,  but 
they  disgusted,  by  the  most  scandalous  dissoluteness  and  vice,  those  whom 
they  should  have  instructed  and  reformed."  Vol.  iii.  p.  271.  He  refers  as 
his  authority  for  this  representation  to  the  contemporary  writers,  Burnet,  vol. 
i.  pp.  229  and  307.  Wodrow,  vol.  i.  pp.  156,  7.  Naphtali,  pp.  171  and  181. 
As  Leighton,  so  distinguished  for  all  excellencies,  was  one  of  the  Scottish  pre- 
lates of  this  day,  so  there  were  doubtless  many  of  the  inferior  clergy  of  ex- 
emplary character.  As  Leighton,  however,  was  at  length  forced  by  the  atro- 
cities of  his  associates  to  lay  down  his  office,  so  many  of  the  better  portion  of 
the  clergy  were  ultimately  driven  from  their  posts. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  49 

to  the  wants  of  those  denounced,  was  held  liable  to  the  same 
penalty  as  the  person  assisted.  All  landholders  were  required  to 
give  bond  that  their  families  and  dependents  should  abstain  from 
attending  any  conventicle.  To  enforce  these  wicked  laws  torture 
was  freely  used  to  extort  evidence  or  confession ;  families  were 
reduced  to  ruin  by  exorbitant  fines ;  the  prisons  were  filled  with 
victims  of  oppression  ;  multitudes  were  banished  and  sold  as  slaves  ; 
women  and  even  children  were  tortured  or  murdered  for  refusing 
to  take  an  oath  they  could  not  understand  ;  soldiers  were  quartered 
upon  the  defenceless  inhabitants  and  allowed  free  license ;  men 
were  hunted  like  wild  beasts,  and  shot  or  gibbeted  along  the  high- 
ways. Modern  history  hardly  affords  a  parallel  to  the  cruelty  and 
oppression  under  which  Scotland  groaned  for  nearly  thirty  years. 
And  what  was  all  this  for  ?  It  was  to  support  Episcopacy.  It 
was  done  for  the  bishops,  and,  in  a  great  measure,  by  them.  They 
were  the  instigators  and  supporters  of  these  cruel  laws,  and  of  the 
still  more  cruel  execution  of  them.*     Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that 

*  "  The  enormities  of  this  detestable  government,"  says  Hallam,  "  are  far 
too  numerous,  even  in  species,  to  be  enumerated  in  this  slight  sketch ;  and 
of  course,  most  instances  of  cruelty  have  not  been  recorded.  The  privy  coun- 
cil was  accustomed  to  extort  confessions  by  torture ;  that  grim  divan  of 
bishops,  lawyers,  and  peers,  sucking  the  groans  of  each  undaunted  enthusiast, 
in  hopes  that  some  imperfect  avowal  might  lead  to  the  sacrifice  of  other  vic- 
tims, or  at  least  warrant  the  execution  of  the  present."  Again,  "  It  was  very 
possible  that  Episcopacy  might  be  of  apostolical  institution  ;  but  for  this  in- 
stitution houses  had  been  burned  and  fields  laid  waste,  and  the  gospel  been 
preached  in  the  wilderness,  and  its  ministers  had  been  shot  in  their  prayers, 
and  husbands  had  been  murdered  before  their  wives,  and  virgins  had  been 
defiled,  and  many  had  died  by  the  executioner,  and  by  massacre,  and  in  im- 
prisonment, and  in  exile  and  slavery,  and  women  had  been  tied  to  stakes  on 
the  sea-shore  till  the  tide  rose  to  overflow  them,  and  some  had  been  tortured 
and  mutilated ;  it  was  a  religion  of  the  boots  and  the  thumb-screw,  which  a 
good  man  must  be  very  cool-blooded  indeed  if  he  did  not  hate  and  reject  from 
the  hands  which  offered  it.  For,  after  all,  it  is  much  more  certain  that  the 
Supreme  Being  abhors  cruelty  and  persecution,  than  that  he  has  set  up 
bishops  to  have  a  superiority  over  Presbyters."  Const.  Hist.  vol.  iii.  pp.  435 
and  442."  The  wonderful  subserviency  and  degradation  of  the  Scottish  par- 
liament during  this  period  must  strike  all  readers  with  astonishment.  This 
fact  is  partially  explained,  and  the  disgrace  in  some  measure  palliated  by  the 

4 


50  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  Scotch  abhorred  Episcopacy  ?  It  was  in  their  experience  iden 
tified  with  despotism,  superstition,  and  irreligion.  Their  love  of 
Presbyterianism  was  one  with  their  love  of  liberty  and  religion. 
As  the  Parliament  of  Scotland  was  never  a  fair  representation  of 
the  people,  the  General  Assembly  of  their  church  became  their 
great  organ  for  resisting  oppression  and  withstanding  the  encroach- 
ments of  their  sovereigns.  The  conflict  therefore  which  in  Eng- 
land was  so  long  kept  up  between  the  crown  and  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, was  in  Scotland  sustained  between  the  crown  and  the  church. 
This  was  one  reason  why  the  Scotch  became  so  attached  to  Pres- 
byterianism ;  this  too,  was  the  reason  why  the  Stuarts  hated  it, 
and  determined  at  all  hazards  to  introduce  prelacy  as  an  ally  to 
despotism.* 

peculiarity  of  its  constitution.  The  controlling  power  was  virtually  in  the 
hands  of  the  bishops,  who  were  the  creatures,  and,  of  course,  the  servants  of 
the  crown.  The  lords  of  the  articles  were  originally  a  committee  chosen  by 
the  parliament  for  the  preparation  of  business.  But  Charles  I.,  without  any 
authority  from  parliament,  had  the  matter  so  arranged,  that  "  the  bishops 
chose  eight  peers,  the  peers  eight  bishops  ;  and  these  appointed  sixteen  com- 
missioners of  shires  and  boroughs.  Thus  the  whole  power  was  devolved  upon 
the  bishops,  the  slaves  and  sycophants  of  the  crown.  The  parliament  itself 
met  only  on  two  days,  the  first  and  last  of  their  pretended  session,  the  one 
time  to  choose  the  lords  of  articles,  the  other  to  ratify  what  they  proposed." 
Hallam.  vol.  iii.  p.  428.  This  arrangement  was  renewed  after  the  restoration 
of  Charles  II. 

*  The  first  Confession  of  Faith  prepared  by  Knox  and  his  associates,  as- 
serted explicitly  the  right  and  duty  of  the  people  to  resist  the  tyranny  of 
their  rulers.  This  was  the  result  of  the  Reformation  being  carried  on  by  the 
people.  In  England  it  was  carried  on  by  the  government.  Hence  the 
marked  difference  between  the  principles  of  the  two  churches  as  to  the  liberty 
of  the  subject  and  the  power  of  kings.  The  General  Assembly  of  1G49  de- 
clared, 1st.  That  as  magistrates  and  their  power  are  ordained  of  God,  so  are 
they  in  the  exercise  thereof,  not  to  walk  after  their  own  will,  but  according 
to  the  law  of  equity  and  righteousness.  ...  A  boundless  and  unlimited  power 
is  to  be  acknowledged  in  no  king  or  magistrate.  2d.  That  there  is  a  mutual 
obligation  betwixt  the  king  and  his  people.  As  both  are  tied  to  God,  so  each 
of  them  is  tied  the  one  to  the  another,  for  the  performance  of  mutual  and 
reciprocal  duties.  3d.  That  arbitrary  government  and  unlimited  power  are 
the  fount  >:ns  of  all  the  corruptions  in  the  Church  and  State.     Compare  these 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  51 

Considering  the  long-continued  persecution  of  the  Scotch  Pres- 
byterians, just  referred  to,  the  wonder  is  that  they  did  not  univer- 
sally forsake  their  country.  The  hope  of  regaining  liberty  at 
home,  however,  never  entirely  deserted  them  ;  and  in  their  darkest 
hours  there  were  occasional  glimpses  of  better  things  to  come, 
which  led  them  to  abandon  the  designs  of  emigration  which  they 
had  formed.  A  company  of  thirty  noblemen  and  gentlemen  had 
contracted  for  a  large  tract  of  land  in  Carolina,  as  an  asylum  for 
their  persecuted  countrymen,  when  the  hope  of  the  success  of  the 
English  patriots,  engaged  in  the  plot  for  which  Russell  and  Sydney 
suffered,  led  them  to  relinquish  their  purpose.     Still,  though  the 

sentiments  with  the  declarations  and  oaths  issued  and  enforced  by  the  Scot- 
tish bishops.  They  were  the  principal  authors  of  the  arbitrary  laws  above 
referred  to.  They  all  voted  for  the  famous  assertory  act  of  1669,  which  de- 
clared the  king's  supremacy  in  all  ecclesiastical  matters,  in  virtue  of  which 
the  ordering  and  disposal  of  the  external  government  and  polity  of  the  church 
belonged  to  him  as  an  inherent  right  of  the  crown ;  and  that  his  orders  re- 
specting all  ecclesiastical  persons  and  matters  are  to  be  obeyed ;  any  law,  act, 
or  custom  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  Cook,  vol.  iii.  p.  314.  They 
eagerly  supported  an  act  imposing  an  oath,  (at  first  designed  only  for  oifice- 
bearers  in  the  church  and  state,  but  which  came  to  be  almost  universally 
enforced,)  "which  no  man  who  had  not  made  up  his  mind  for  slavery,  could 
swear."  It  declared  the  King  to  be  supreme  governor  over  all  persons  and 
in  all  causes,  civil  and  ecclesiastical ;  that  it  was  unlawful  to  consult  or  deter- 
mine upon  any  subject  relating  to  church  or  state  without  his  express  per- 
mission, or  to  form  associations  for  redressing  grievances,  or  take  up  arms 
against  the  King,  or  to  attempt  any  alteration  in  the  political  or  ecclesiastical 
constitution  of  the  kingdom,  &c.  Ibid.  368.  This  reference  to  the  arbitrary 
principles  and  atrocious  cruelties  of  the  Scottish  bishops,  is  not  made  with 
the  ungenerous  design  of  casting  odium  on  Episcopacy.  The  odium  belongs 
to  the  men  and  to  their  principles,  and  not  to  Episcopacy.  Those  prelates 
were  introduced  by  the  King,  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  people. 
They  owed  every  thing  to  the  prerogative.  They  could  stand  only  so  long 
as  the  power  of  the  King  should  prevail  over  the  will  of  the  nation.  It  is  no 
wonder,  therefore,  that  they  magnified  that  power.  Had  the  case  been  re- 
versed, had  Episcopacy  been  abolished  and  Presbyterianism  introduced  by  des- 
potic authority,  we  might  have  seen  Presbyterians  the  advocates  of  preroga- 
tive, and  bishops  the  asserters  of  liberty.  As  it  was,  however,  prelacy  and 
despotism  in  Scotland  were  inseparable ;  neither  could  live  without  the  other : 
so  they  died  a  common  death. 


52  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

emigration  was  not  so  great  as  might  under  such  sufferings  have 
been  expected,  it  was  very  considerable. 

What  portion  of  the  four  thousand  Presbyterians  who,  according 
to  Mather,  came  to  New  England  before  1640,  were  from  Scotland 
or  Ireland,  his  account  does  not  enable  the  reader  to  determine. 
At  a  later  period,  a  hundred  families  from  Ireland  settled  London 
derry  in  New  Hampshire.  They  brought  with  them  the  Rev. 
James  McGregore  as  their  pastor,  "who  remained  with  them  until 
his  death,  and  his  memory  is  still  precious  among  them.  He  was 
a  wise,  faithful  and  affectionate  guide  to  them  both  in  civil  and 
religious  concerns."*  In  1729,  a  church  was  organized  in  Boston, 
composed  of  Scotch  and  Irish,  which  continued  Presbyterian  until 
1786.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Moorhead  was  their  first  pastor,  "  an  honest, 
faithful,  and  laborious  minister."  f  Other  emigrants  settled  at 
Pelham  and  Palmer.     There  was  a  church  also  at  Hampton. | 

At  what  time  the  Scotch  and  Irish  began  to  emigrate  to  New 
York,  it  is  not  easy  to  ascertain.  Smith  says,  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city,  in  1708,  were  "  Dutch  Calvinists,  upon  the  plan  of  the 
church  of  Holland,  French  refugees  on  the  Geneva  model,  a  few 
English  Episcopalians,  and  a  still  smaller  number  of  English  and 
Irish  Presbyterians. "§  Having  increased  in  numbers,  they  "called 
Mr.  Anderson,  a  Scotch  minister,  to  the  pastoral  charge  of  their 
congregation :  and  Dr.  John  Nicolls,  Patrick  McKnight,  Gilbert 
Livingston,  and  Thomas  Smith,  purchased  a  piece  of  ground 
and  founded  a  church."  (p.  209.)  That  the  members  of  that  con- 
gregation were  principally  Scotch  may  be  inferred  from  the  follow- 
ing facts.       Of  the   four  gentlemen   who   were   the   original  pur- 

*  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  99.  t  MS. 

X  MS.  The  same  account  states  that  the  church  in  Newburyport  became 
Presbyterian  under  the  influence  of  Mr.  Pierson,  who  left  Connecticut 
about  1743.  All  these  churches  were  probably  included  in  the  Presbytery  of 
Boston,  as  may  be  inferred  from  "A  fair  narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Boston,  against  Rev.  Robert  Abercrombie,  late  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  at  Pelham,  in  a  letter  to  Rev.  John  Moorhead,  Rev.  Jonathan  Parson:!, 
and  Rev.  David  McGregore,  committee  of  said  Presbytery."     Boston,  1757. 

2  History  of  New  York,  p.  186. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  53 

chasers  of  the  ground  for  the  erection  of  the  church,  Dr.  Nicolls 
was  a  native  of  Scotland,*  he  had  the  principal  and  almost  exclu- 
sive control  of  the  pecuniary  affairs  of  the  church,  and  is  spoken 
of  by  Mr.  Peuiberton,  "  as  one  of  its  principal  founders,  and  its 
greatest  benefactor."  Mr.  Patrick  McKnight  was  from  the  north 
of  Ireland ;  Mr.  Gilbert  Livingston  was  Scotch  by  birth  or  imme- 
diate descent  ;f  Mr.  Thomas  Smith's  origin  is  not  known.  The 
Rev.  Mr.  Anderson,  their  first  pastor,  settled  in  1717,  was  a  Scotch 
minister  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  Irvine.  In  1720,  a  peti- 
tion was  presented  to  the  president  of  the  council  for  an  act  of 
incorporation,  and  would  probably  have  been  granted,  but  for  the 
active  opposition  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  church,  as  the  council  to 
whom  the  president  referred  the  application,  reported  in  its  favour. 
This  application  was  made  by  "  Mr.  Anderson,  Presbyterian  min- 
ister, and  Patrick  McKnight,  John  Nicolls,  Joseph  Leddel,  John 
Blake,  and  Thomas  Inglis,  in  behalf  of  themselves,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Presbyterian  congregation  in  the  city  of  New  York."  The 
petition  states,  that  the  applicants  had  purchased  a  piece  of  ground 
and  erected  a  convenient  house  for  the  worship  of  God,  "  after  the 
manner  of  the  Presbyterian  church  of  North  Britain."  It  further 
details  the  inconvenient  way  in  which  they  were  obliged  to  vest  the 
title  to  their  property  in  certain  individuals,  to  be  held  by  them 
until  the  congregation  should  be  incorporated  "as  one  body  politic 
in  fact  and  in  name,  for  carrying  on  their  said  pious  intentions, 
and  the  free  use  and  exercise  of  their  said  religion  in  its  true  doc- 
trine, discipline  and  worship,  according  to  the  rules  and  method  of 
the  established  church  of  North  Britain."  They  therefore  pray 
the  president,  "  by  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal  of  this  pro- 
vince, to  incorporate  them  by  the  name  of  the  ministers,  elders, 
and  deacons  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  city  of  New  York. "J 

*  Dr.  Miller's  Life  of  Dr.  Rodgers,  p.  134. 

f  It  is  believed  that  the  whole  Livingston  family,  in  this  country,  trace  their 
descent  from  the  celebrated  Scotch  clergyman  of  that  name. 

J  This  is  one  of  the  churches  which  is  most  frequently  and  confidently 
claimed  as  originally  Congregational  in  its  composition  and  character.  The 
above  statement  shows  that  this  was  not  the  fact.     It  was  originally  a  strict 


54  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

The  account  which  was  published  of  their  long  and  fruitless  efforts 
to  obtain  an  act  of  incorporation,  is  entitled  "  Case  of  the  Scotch 
Presbyterians,"  &c.  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  doubt  as  to  the 
origin  and  early  character  of  this  congregation.  A  portion  of  the 
people  being  dissatisfied  with  Mr.  Anderson's  strictness  as  a  Pres- 
byterian, were,  by  the  trustees  of  Yale  College,  erected  into  a  sepa- 
rate congregation.  This  interference  gave  great  umbrage  to  the 
Presbytery  of  Long  Island,  and  much  is  said  in  reference  to  it  in 
our  early  records.  This  new  congregation  did  not  long  continue. 
Most  of  its  members,  it  is  believed,  returned  to  the  old  church. 

Presbyterian  church,  having  elders  and  deacons  from  the  beginning,  as  the 
above  application  was  made,  March  4,  1719-20.  It  was  not  until  after  Mr. 
Pemberton's  settlement  that  elders  were  laid  aside.  In  the  records  of  the 
trustees  of  that  church,  commencing  with  the  year  1740,  there  is  an  account 
of  the  congregation  from  the  beginning,  in  which  mention  is  made  of  "  the 
elders,  deacons,  and  session-room ;"  and  in  the  account  of  the  difficulty  with 
Mr.  Pemberton,  it  is  said,  "  at  present,  by  reason  of  the  death  of  some,  and 
the  removal  of  others,  we  have  not  one  lay  elder  or  deacon."  Of  course  they 
had  these  officers  before.  Again,  the  trustees  enter  a  protest  against  Mr. 
Pemberton's  claim  to  sit  with  them  and  take  part  in  the  temporal  affairs  of 
the  church ;  in  which  they  say,  "  the  power  in  this  church  and  congregation 
may  be  considered  under  the  usual  similitude  of  three  keys,  the  key  of  doc- 
trinal instruction,  the  key  of  discipline  and  government,  and  the  key  of  the 
cash.  The  first,  they  say,  belongs  to  the  minister,  the  second  to  the  minis- 
ter and  elders,  "  either  alone  or  with  the  deacons,  which  we  do  not  deter- 
mine ;"  and  the  third  to  the  trustees.  For  these  facts  the  writer  is  indebted 
to  the  kindness  of  James  Lenox,  Esq.  of  New  York.  The  difficulties  in  this 
church  were  of  very  long  continuance,  and  arose  from  various  sources.  A 
part  of  the  people  were  dissatisfied  with  Dr.  Nicolls'  management  of  the  pecu- 
niary affairs,  and  complained  to  the  Synod  on  the  subject;  and  a  committee 
was  sent,  in  1727,  to  endeavour  to  arrange  this  matter.  It  was  then  agreed 
that  the  property  should  be  vested  in  certain  ministers  in  Edinburgh,  to  be 
held  by  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  Presbyterian  congregation  in  New  York. 
Another  source  of  trouble  was,  the  difference  of  opinion  about  psalmody ;  and 
another  related  to  discipline  and  government.  As  far  as  this  last  point  is  con- 
cerned, instead  of  a  few  Scotchmen  entering  a  Congregational  church  and 
trying  to  make  it  Presbyterian,  as  has  been  represented,  the  reverse  happens 
to  be  the  case ;  Congregationalists  entered  a  Presbyterian  church  and  then 
were  unwilling  to  submit  to  its  rules.  How  far  this  is  analogous  with  the 
case  of  our  church  at  large,  remains  to  be  seen. 


IN     THE     UNITED    STATES.  55 

At  a  subsequent  period,  about  1756,  when  the  majority  of  people 
determined,  with  permission  of  the  Synod,  to  introduce  the  use  of 
Watts's  hymns,  a  portion  of  the  Scotch  members  withdrew,  and 
formed  the  church  of  which  the  Rev.  John  Mason  became  the 
pastor. 

Holmes  mentions  the  arrival  of  between  four  and  five  hundred 
emigrants  from  Scotland  at  New  York,  in  1737.*  The  county  of 
Ulster,  in  1757,  was  inhabited  by  "  Dutch,  French,  English,  Scotch, 
and  Irish,  but  the  first  and  last  the  most  numerous. "f  The  north 
side  of  Orange  county,  Smith  states,  was  inhabited  by  Scotch,  Irish, 
and  English  Presbyterians  ;  and  he  mentions  a  settlement  of  Scotch- 
Irish  in  Albany  county. 

The  Quakers  having  made  extensive  settlements  in  West  Jersey, 
became  desirous  of  extending  their  influence  through  the  eastern 
portion  of  the  State.  This  induced  Wm.  Penn,  and  eleven  other 
members  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  in  1682,  to  purchase  East 
Jersey  from  the  devisees  of  Sir  George  Carteret.  In  order  to  avoid 
exciting  the  jealousy  of  other  denominations,  these  new  proprietors 
connected  with  themselves  twelve  associates,  many  of  whom  were 
natives  of  Scotland,  "  from  which  country  the  greatest  emigration 
was  expected."  To  induce  the  Scotch  to  emigrate,  a  favourable 
account  of  the  province  was  circulated  among  them,  and  the  assu- 
rance given  that  they  should  enjoy  that  religious  liberty  which  was 
denied  them  in  their  own  country.  "  '  It  is  judged  the  interest  of 
the  government,'  said  George  Scot  of  Pitlochie,  apparently  with  the 
sanction  of  men  in  power,  '  to  suppress  Presbyterian  principles 
altogether  :  the  whole  force  of  the  law  of  this  kingdom  is  levelled 
at  the  effectual  bearing  them  down.  The  rigorous  putting  these  laws 
in  execution,  has,  in  a  great  part,  ruined  many  of  those  who,  not- 
withstanding hereof,  find  themselves  in  conscience  obliged  to  retain 
these  principles.  A  retreat  where,  by  law,  a  toleration  is  allowed, 
doth  at  present  offer  itself  in  America,  and  is  no  where  else  to  be 
found  in  his  majesty's  dominions.'  This  is  the  era  at  which  East 
New  Jersey,  till  now  chiefly  colonized  from  New  England,  became 

*  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  145.  f  Smith's  History,  p.  218. 


56  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

the  asylum  of  Scottish  Presbyterians."*  "  Is  it  strange,"  asks  the 
author  just  quoted,  "  that  many  Scottish  Presbyterians  of  virtue, 
education,  and  courage,  blending  a  love  of  popular  liberty  with 
religious  enthusiasm,  came  to  East  New  Jersey  in  such  numbers,  as 
to  give  to  the  rising  commonwealth  a  character  which  a  century  and 
a  half  has  not  effaced  ?"f  "  The  more  wealthy  of  the  Scotch  emi- 
grants were  noted  for  bringing  with  them  a  great  number  of  servants, 
and,  in  some  instances,  for  transporting  whole  families  of  poor 
labourers,  whom  they  established  on  their  lands. "J  In  a  letter 
from  the  deputy-governor,  dated  Elizabethtown,  1st  month  2,  1684, 
it  is  said,  "  the  Scots,  and  William  Dockwras  people,  coming  now 
and  settling,  advance  the  province  more  than  it  hath  advanced  these 
ten  years. "§ 

It  is  evident  from  these  and  similar  testimonies  which  might  be 
collected,  that  the  emigrants  from  Scotland  to  East  Jersey  were 
numerous  and  influential.  In  some  places  they  united  with  the 
Dutch  and  Puritan  settlers  in  the  formation  of  churches,  in  others 
they  were  sufficiently  numerous  to  organize  congregations  by  them- 
selves. The  church  in  Freehold,  one  of  the  largest  in  the  State, 
was  formed  chiefly  by  them.  It  was  organized  about  1692. ||  Their 
first  pastor  was  the  Rev.  John  Boyd,  from  Scotland ;  who  died,  as 
appears  from  his  tombstone,  in  1708.  Subsequently  the  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Tennent  became  their  minister,  and  continued  with  them  forty- 
four  years. 

It  was,  however,  to  Pennsylvania,  that  the  largest  emigrations 
of  the  Scotch  and  Irish,  particularly  of  the  latter,  though  at  a 
somewhat  later  period,  took  place.     Early  in  the  last  century  they 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  411.  f  Ibid.  p.  414.  J  Gordon,  p.  51. 

§  Smith,  p.  177. 

||  "  The  church  was  formed  about  an  hundred  years  ago,  chiefly  by  person* 
from  Scotland."  MS  letter,  dated,  April  23,  1792.  The  building  was  long 
called  the  Scotch  meeting-house.  "  Through  the  influence  of  Gov.  Belchior, 
a  charter  of  incorporation  was  obtained  for  this  church,  including  those  of 
Allentown  and  Shrewsbury ;  but  since  the  independency  of  America,  Freehold 
has  given  up  said  charter,  and  is  incorporated  under  the  authority  of  the 
State."  MS. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  57 

began  to  arrive  in  large  numbers.  Near  six  thousand  Irish  are 
reported  as  having  come  in  1729  ;*  and  before  the  middle  of  the 
century,  near  twelve  thousand  arrived  annually  for  several  years. | 
Speaking  of  a  later  period,  Proud  says,  "  they  have  flowed  in  of  late 
years  from  the  north  of  Ireland  in  very  large  numbers."  Cumber- 
land county,  he  says,  is  settled  by  them,  and  they  abound  through 
the  whole  province.  From  Pennsylvania  they  spread  themselves 
into  Virginia,  and  thence  into  North  Carolina.  A  thousand  families 
arrived  in  that  State  from  the  northern  colonies  in  the  single  year 
1764.J  Their  descendants  occupy  the  western  portion  of  the 
State,  with  a  dense  and  homogeneous  population,  distinguished  by 
the  strict  morals  and  rigid  principles  of  their  ancestors.  In  1749, 
five  or  six  hundred  Scotch  settled  near  Fayetteville ;  there  was  a 
second  importation  in  1754 ;  and  "  there  was  an  annual  importa- 
tion, from  that  time,  of  those  hardy  and  industrious  people."§ 

A  considerable  number  of  Scotch  also  settled  in  Maryland. 
Col.  Ninian  Beall,  a  native  of  Fifeshire,  having  become  implicated 
in  the  troubles  arising  out  of  the  conflict  with  Episcopacy,  fled  first 
to  Barbadoes,  and  thence  removed  to  Maryland,  where  he  made  an 
extensive  purchase  of  land,  covering  much  of  the  present  site  of 
Washington  and  Georgetown.  He  sent  home  to  urge  his  friends 
and  neighbours  to  join  him  in  his  exile,  and  had  influence  enough 
to  induce  about  two  hundred  to  come  over.  They  arrived  about 
1690,  bringing  with  them  their  pastor,  the  Rev.  Nathaniel  Taylor, 
and  formed  the  church  and  congregation  of  Upper  Marlborough. || 

*  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  123. 

f  Proud's  History  of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  ii.  p.  273-4.  This  emigration  con- 
tinued for  a  long  time.  Holmes  states  that  "  in  the  first  fortnight  of  August 
1773,  three  thousand  five  hundred  passengers  arrived  in  Pennsylvania  from 
Ireland.  In  October  a  ship  arrived  from  Galway  in  the  north  of  Ireland, 
with  eighty  passengers ;  and  a  ship  from  Belfast  with  a  hundred  and  seventy 
passengers.     Vol.  ii.  p.  305. 

The  Irish  emigrants,  of  whom  mention  is  made  above,  were  almost  all  Pres- 
byterians. The  flow  of  the  catholic  Irish  to  this  country  did  not  take  place  until 
a  comparatively  recent  period. 

X  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  268. 

§  Williamson's  History  of  North  Carolina,  vol.  ii.  p.  80. 

1]  MS.  by  the  late  Dr.  Balch  of  Georgetown. 


58  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

As  early  as  1684,  a  small  colony  of  persecuted  Scotch,  under 
Lord  Cardross,  settled  in  South  Carolina,  and  a  colony  of  Irish 
under  Ferguson.*  In  1737,  it  is  said,  "  multitudes  of  labourers 
and  husbandmen"  from  Ireland  embarked  for  Carolina,  f  In  17'!4, 
"  besides  foreign  Protestants,  several  persons  from  England  and 
Scotland,  and  great  multitudes  from  Ireland,  settled"^  in  that  State. 
Within  three  years  before  1773,  sixteen  hundred  emigrants  from  the 
north  of  Ireland,  settled  in  Carolina. §  Dr.  Ramsay  says,  "of  all 
other  countries,  none  has  furnished  the  province  so  many  inhabitants 
as  Ireland.  Scarcely  a  ship  sailed  from  any  of  its  ports  for  Charles- 
ton that  was  not  crowded  with  men,  women,  and  children. "||  These 
were  almost  entirely  Presbyterians.  There  was  no  Catholic  place 
of  worship  in  Charleston  before  1791.  In  another  place  the  same 
author  says,  "  the  Scotch  and  Dutch  were  the  most  useful  emi- 
grants  to  the  former  South  Carolina  is  indebted  for  much  of 

its  early  literature.  A  great  proportion  of  its  physicians,  clergy- 
men, lawyers  and  schoolmasters  were  from  North  Britain. "Tf  Edisto 
Island  was  settled  by  emigrants  from  Scotland  and  Wales.**  The 
inhabitants  were  either  Presbyterians  or  Episcopalians ;  the  former 
were  the  more  numerous.  The  time  of  the  organization  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  there,  is  not  known.  But  in  1705,  Henry 
Brown  obtained  a  grant  for  three  hundred  acres  of  land,  which  in 
1717  he  conveyed  to  certain  persons  in  "  trust  for  the  benefit  of  a 
Presbyterian  clergyman  in  Edisto  Island."  In  1732,  another  dona- 
tion was  made  for  the  benefit  of  a  minister  "  who  owns  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  his  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  who,  agree- 
ably to  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  shall 
own  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms;  as  a  test  of  his  orthodoxy,  and  that  before  the 
church  session  for  the  time  being,  before  his  settlement  there  as  the 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  173.     f  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  p.  145.     J  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  2G8. 

\  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  305.  Holmes  says,  America,  but  the  context  shows  that 
Carolina  is  intended,  since  in  the  same  note  he  mentions  the  arrival  of  thirty- 
five  hundred  Irish  in  Pennsylvania. 

||  Ramsay's  History  of  South  Carolina,  vol.  i.  p.  20. 

\  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  23.  **  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  548. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  59 

rightful  minister  of  the  aforesaid  church  or  congregation."  (Vol.  ii. 
p.  558.)  The  Scotch  and  Irish  were  also  among  the  early  settlers 
of  Georgia.* 

From  this  slight  and  imperfect  view  of  the  several  classes  of 
people  by  whom  our  country  was  settled,  it  is  evident  that  a  broad 
foundation  for  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  laid  from  the  beginning. 
The  English  Puritans  were  all  Calvinists  and  many  of  them  Pres- 
byterians. The  Dutch  were  Calvinists  and  Presbyterians  ;  a  moiety, 
at  least,  of  the  Germans  were  of  the  same  class.  All  the  French 
Protestants  were  Calvinists  and  Presbyterians,  and  so,  of  course, 
were  the  Scotch  and  Irish.  Of  the  several  classes,  the  Dutch  and 
Germans  formed  distinct  ecclesiastical  organizations,  and  subsist  as 
such  to  the  present  time.  In  a  multitude  of  cases,  however,  their 
descendants  mingled  with  the  descendants  of  other  Presbyterians, 
and  have  entered  largely  into  the  materials  of  which  our  church  is 
composed.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  descendants  of  the 
French  Protestants,  who  have  generally  joined  either  the  Episcopal 
or  Presbyterian  church.  The  early  influence  of  the  New  England 
Puritans  was,  as  has  been  seen,  nearly  confined  to  Long  Island  and 
East  Jersey.  Of  those  who  settled  in  Jersey,  a  portion  were,  no 
doubt,  inclined  to  Congregationalism,  others  of  them  were  Presby- 
terians. All  the  ministers,  according  to  Mr.  Andrews,  were  of  the 
latter  class.  The  strict  Presbyterian  emigrants,  Scotch,  Irish, 
Dutch  and  French,  laid  the  foundation  of  our  church  in  New  York, 
East  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  the  Carolinas, 
through  which  provinces,  as  has  been  shown,  they  were  early 
extended  in  very  great  numbers. 

This  review  accounts  for  the  rapid  increase  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  this  country.  In  about  a  century  and  a  quarter,  it  has 
risen  from  two  or  three  ministers  to  between  two  and  three  thou- 
sand. This  is  no  matter  of  surprise,  when  it  is  seen  that  so  large 
a  portion  of  the  emigrants  were  Presbyterians.  As  they  merged 
their  diversities  of  national  character  into  that  of  American  citi- 
zens, so  the  Scotch,  Irish,  French,  English,  Dutch,  and  German 
Presbyterians  became  united  in  thousands  of  instances  in  the  Ameri- 

*  Holmes,  vol.  ii.  pp.  131,  142. 


60  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

can  Presbyterian  Church.  Having  the  same  views  of  civil  govern 
ment,  our  population,  so  diversified  as  to  its  origin,  forms  a  har- 
monious civil  society,  and  agreeing  in  opinion  on  the  government 
of  the  Church,  the  various  classes  above  specified  formed  a  reli- 
gious society,  in  which  the  difference  of  their  origin  was  as  little 
regarded  as  it  was  in  the  State. 

The  review  given  above  of  the  settlement  of  the  country  shows 
also,  that  nothing  but  a  sectional  vanity  little  less  than  insane, 
could  lead  to  the  assertion  that  Congregationalism  was  the  basis 
of  Presbyterianism  in  this  country,  and  that  the  Presbyterian 
church  never  would  have  had  an  existence,  except  in  name,  had  not 
the  Congregationalists  come  among  us  from  New  England.  The 
number  of  Puritans  who  settled  in  New  England,  was  about  twenty- 
one  thousand.  If  it  be  admitted  that  three-fourths  of  these  were 
Congregationalists,  (which  is  a  large  admission,)  it  gives  between 
fifteen  and  sixteen  thousand.  The  Presbyterian  emigrants  who 
came  to  this  country  by  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  were  be- 
tween one  and  two  hundred  thousand.  Those  from  Ireland  alone, 
imperfect  as  are  the  records  of  emigration,  could  not  have  been 
less  than  fifty  thousand,  and  probably  were  far  more  numerous. 
Yet  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church  owes  its  existence  to  the  mere 
overflowings  of  New  England !  It  would  be  much  nearer  the  truth 
to  say,  that  Presbyterians  have  been  the  basis  of  several  denomi- 
nations. Half  the  population  of  the  country  would  now  be  Pres- 
byterian, had  the  descendants  of  Presbyterians,  in  all  cases,  ad- 
hered to  the  faith  of  their  fathers. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the  emigration  of  New  England 
men  westward,  did  not  take  place,  to  any  great  extent,  until  after 
the  revolutionary  war;  that  is,  until  nearly  three-fourths  of  a  cen- 
tury after  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  founded  and  widely  ex- 
tended. At  that  time  western  New  York,  Ohio,  and  the  still  more 
remote  west  was  a  wilderness.  Leaving  that  region  out  of  view, 
what  would  be  even  now,  the  influence  of  New  England  men  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ?  Yet  it  is  very  common  to  hear  those,  who 
formed  a  mere  handful  of  the  original  materials  of  the  Church, 
speaking  of  all  others  as  foreigners  and  intruders.     Such  represeii 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  61 

tations  would  be  offensive  from  their  injustice,  were  it  not  for  their 
absurdity.  Suppose  the  few  (and  they  were  comparatively  verj 
few)  Congregationalists  of  East  Jersey  had  refused  to  associate 
with  their  Dutch  and  Scotch  Presbyterian  neighbours,  what  great 
difference  would  it  have  made  ?  Must  the  thousands  of  Presbyte- 
rians already  in  the  country,  and  the  still  more  numerous  thou- 
sands annually  arriving,  have  ceased  to  exist  ?  Are  those  few  Con- 
gregationalists the  fathers  of  us  all  ?  The  truth  is,  it  was  not 
until  a  much  later  period  that  the  great  influx  of  Congregation- 
alists into  our  church  took  place,  though  they  are  now  disposed  to 
regard  the  descendants  of  its  founders  as  holding  their  places  in 
the  church  of  their  fathers  only  by  sufferance. 

Sectional  jealousies  are  beginning  to  threaten  the  safety  of  our 
country.  They  surely  ought  not  to  be  brought  into  the  church. 
They  cannot  be  avoided,  however,  if  arrogant  and  injurious  as- 
sumptions on  either  side  are  allowed.  The  above  remarks  are  made 
with  the  view  of  suppressing  such  prejudices.  This  can  be  effected 
in  no  other  way,  than  by  preventing  unjust  and  irritating  claims. 
Justice  is  the  only  stable  foundation  of  peace.  It  is  the  peculiar 
characteristic  of  America,  that  it  is  the  asylum  of  all  nations. 
The  blood  of  the  Huguenots,  of  the  Puritans,  of  the  Dutch,  of  the 
Germans,  of  the  Scotch,  and  of  the  Irish,  here  flows  in  one  com- 
mon stream.*  A  man,  therefore,  must  fight  against  himself  who 
would  contend  for  any  one  of  these  classes  against  all  others. 

*  There  is  more  than  one  child  in  this  village  in  whose  veins  is  mingled  the 
Wood  of  Puritans,  Huguenots,  English,  Irish,  and  Germans.  Such  instances, 
it  is  to  be  presumed,  are  to  be  found  every  where. 


CHAPTER  II. 

PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    FROM    1705    TO    1729. 

Introductory  remarks. — Design  of  the  chapter  to  exhibit  the  character  of  the 
ChOrch  during  this  period. — Origin  of  the  congregations  connected  •with 
the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  at  the  time  of  its  organization.  —  Origin  of 
the  ministers  who  constituted  that  Presbytery.  —  Ministers  connected  with 
the  church  at  the  formation  of  the  Synod.  —  Ministers  who  joined  the  Synod 
from  1717  to  1729.  —  Standard  of  doctrines  assumed  by  the  Presbytery. — 
Form  of  government  established  by  the  Presbytery. — Government  of  the 
individual  congregations.  —  Powers  exercised  by  the  Presbytery  over  the 
churches. — Its  authority  over  its  own  members.  —  Peculiarities  in  its  modes 
of  action.  —  The  powers  of  the  Synod.  —  Its  peculiarities.  —  Examination  of 
Mr.  Gillespie's  overture  respecting  acts  of  Synod ;  and  of  president  Dick- 
inson's four  articles  relating  to  church  government.  —  Conclusion. 

In  the  preceding  chapter,  it  was  shown  that  the  materials  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  were,  towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
and  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  centuries,  widely  scattered  over 
the  middle  and  southern  States ;  and  that  these  materials  increased 
with  great  rapidity  for  a  long  series  of  years.  It  was  shown  also 
that  a  large  proportion  of  all  the  emigrants  who  arrived  in  this 
country  during  that  period,  from  Great  Britain  and  the  continent 
of  Europe,  were  Calvinists  in  doctrine  and  Presbyterians  in  disci- 
pline. It  was  natural  that  the  Puritans  from  New  England  who 
settled  in  the  middle  provinces  should  unite  in  ecclesiastical  con- 
nections with  these  European  emigrants.  These  Puritans  were  all 
Calvinists ;  many  of  them  were  Presbyterians,  and  those  who  were 
Congregationalists  were  accustomed  to  a  far  different  Platform 
from  any  now  in  force.  They  were  familiar  with  the  government 
of  churches,  by  elders,  differing  little  in  their  functions  from  those 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Their  Synods,  especially  in  Connec- 
ticut, were  clothed  with  the  power,  which  at  present  would  be  cou- 
(62) 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  63 

sidered  as  little  short  of  Presbyterianism.  That  the  early  Puri- 
tans were  rigid  Calvinists,  no  one  has  ventured  to  deny.  Cotton 
Mather  informs  us,  that  a  gentleman  in  New  England  having  pub- 
lished a  book  in  which  he  attempted  to  prove  "  that  Christ  bore 
not  our  sins  by  God's  imputation,  and  therefore  also  did  not  bear 
the  curse  of  the  law  for  them,  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts, 
(the  supreme  civil  authority,)  concerned  that  the  glorious  truths  of 
the  Gospel  might  be  rescued  from  the  confusion  whereinto  the  essay 
of  this  gentleman  had  thrown  them,  and  afraid  lest  the  church  of 
God  abroad  should  suspect  that  New  England  allowed  such  exor- 
bitant aberrations,  appointed  Mr.  Norton  to  draw  up  an  answer  to 
that  erroneous  treatise.  This  work  he  performed  with  a  most  elabo- 
rate and  judicious  pen,  in  a  book  afterwards  published  under  the 
title,  '  A  discussion  of  that  great  point  in  divinity,  the  sufferings 
of  Christ ;  and  the  questions  about  his  active  and  passive  obedi- 
ence, and  the  imputation  thereof.'  In  that  book  the  true  princi- 
ples of  the  Gospel  are  stated,  with  so  much  demonstration,  as  is 
indeed  unanswerable.  The  great  assertion  therein  explained  and 
maintained  is,  according  to  the  express  words  of  the  reverend 
author,  '  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  God-man,  and  Mediator, 
according  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  his  own  voluntary  consent, 
fully  obeyed  the  law,  doing  the  command  in  the  way  of  works,  and 
suffering  the  essential  punishment  of  the  curse,  in  the  way  of  satis- 
faction unto  Divine  justice,  thereby  exactly  fulfilling  the  first  Cove- 
nant ;  which  active  and  passive  obedience  of  his,  together  with  his 
original  righteousness,  as  a  surety,  God,  of  his  rich  grace,  actually 
imputeth  unto  believers  ;  whom  by  the  receipt  thereof  by  the  grace 
of  faith,  he  declareth  and  accepteth  as  perfectly  righteous,  and 
acknowledged!  them  to  have  a  right  unto  eternal  life.'  And  in 
every  clause  of  this  position,  the  author  expressed,  not  his  own 
sense  alone,  but  the  sense  of  all  the  churches  in  the  country ;  in 
testimony  whereof  there  was  published  at  the  end  of  the  book,  an 
instrument  signed  by  five  considerable  names,  Cotton,  Wilson,  Ma- 
ther, Symmes,  and  Thompson,  who,  in  the  name  of  others  declare, 
'  A's  they  believe,  they  also  profess,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ 
to  the  whole  law,  which  is  the  law  of  righteousness,  is  the  matter 


64  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

of  our  justification ;  and  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and 
thereupon  his  suffering  the  sense  of  the  wrath  of  God  upon  him 
for  our  sins,  and  the  imputation  of  his  obedience  to  us,  are  the 
formal  cause  of  our  justification,  and  that  they  who  deny  this,  do 
now  take  away  both  of  these,  both  the  matter  and  form  of  our  jus- 
tification, which  is  the  life  of  our  souls  and  of  our  religion,  and 
therefore  called  the  justification  of  life.'"*  With  men  holding 
such  opinions,  Presbyterians  might  well  unite.  To  what  extent 
these  doctrines  have  become  obsolete  in  New  England,  it  is  not  for 
us  to  say.  Dr.  Beecher,  in  relation  to  a  cognate  doctrine  says, 
"  our  Puritan  fathers  adhered  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as 
consisting  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  in  a  hereditary 
depravity  ;  and  this  continued  to  be  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
churches  of  New  England  until  after  the  time  of  Edwards.  He 
adopted  the  views  of  the  Reformers  on  the  subject  of  original  sin, 
as  consisting  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  a  depraved 
nature  transmitted  by  descent.  But  after  him,  this  mode  of  stat- 
ing the  subject  was  gradually  changed,  until  long  since,  the  pre- 
vailing doctrine  in  New  England  has  been,  that  men  are  not  guilty 
of  Adam's  sin,  and  that  depravity  is  not  of  the  substance  of  the 
soul,  nor  an  inherent  physical  quality,  but  is  wholly  voluntary,  and 
consists  in  the  transgression  of  the  law,  in  such  circumstances  as 
constitutes  accountability  and  desert  of  punishment."  f  It  is  not 
to  be  presumed  that  all  the  New  England  clergy  would  assent  to 
the  correctness  of  this  representation  of  their  rejecting  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Puritans  and  of  Edwards,  any  more  than  the  advo- 
cates of  those  doctrines  would  assent  to  the  correctness  of  the  ex- 
position here  given  of  the  doctrine  of  depravity.  Still  no  one 
doubts,  that  there  has  been  an  extensive  change  of  views  in  New 
England  upon  all  these  subjects ;  and  that  the  doctrines  which  the 
early  Puritans  declared  to  be  the  life  of  their  souls  and  of  religion, 
are  by  very  many  rejected. 

The  change  has  been  equally  marked  as  it  regards  discipline. 
Elders  have  been  long  discarded  from  their  churches.  No  Synod 
has  been  held    in  Massachusetts  for  more  than  a  century.     The 

*  Magnalia,  vol.  i.  p.  2G6.  f  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  vol.  i.  p.  158. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  65 

Cambridge  Platform  has  become  a  dead  letter ;  and  a  system  dif- 
fering but  little  from  independency,  has  taken  the  place  of  the 
original  discipline  of  their  churches.*  It  would,  therefore,  be  a 
great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  New  England  people,  who  before 
the  middle  of  the  last  century  associated  themselves  with  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  brought  with  them  the  views  on  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline, which,  to  so  great  an  extent,  now  distinguish  the  church  in 
that  part  of  our  country. 

It  is  the  object  of  the  present  chapter  to  ascertain  and  exhibit 
the  character  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States, 
during  its  forming  period ;  that  is  from  1704  or  1705  to  1729.  For 
this  purpose  it  will  be  necessary  to  ascertain,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
origin  of  the  several  congregations  of  which  the  church  was  origin- 
ally composed ;  and  the  origin  and  character  of  the  members  of  the 
first  Presbytery ;  to  learn  what  standard  of  doctrine  was  assumed 
by  them,  and  what  form  of  government  they  instituted  and  adminis- 
tered. This  latter  point  can,  of  course,  best  be  learned  from  the 
record  of  their  proceedings,  by  ascertaining  what  powers  the  Pres- 
bytery exercised  over  the  churches,  and  over  its  own  members ;  and 
what  relation  the  Synod,  after  its  formation,  assumed  to  the  Pres- 
byteries and  churches. 

The  first  subject  of  investigation,  then,  is  the  origin  of  the  early 
Presbyterian  churches.  It  might  be  inferred  from  the  statements 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  Presbyterian  churches  would  be 
formed  nearly  cotemporaneously  in  various  parts  of  the  country. 
And  such  in  fact  was  the  case.  In  a  letter  written  by  the  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia  to  that  of  Dublin,  and  dated  1710,  it  is  said, 
"  In  all  Virginia  we  have  one  small  congregation  on  Elizabeth  river, 
and  some  few  families  favouring  our  way  in  Rappahannoc  and  York  ; 
in  Maryland  four,  in  Pennsylvania  five,  in  the  Jerseys  two,  which 
bounds  with  some  places  in  New  York,  make  up  all  the  bounds 

*  In  a  MS.  letter  to  Mr.  Hazard,  dated  Boston,  Nov.  20,  1807,  the  writer 
says,  "  our  people  are  so  jealous  of  rule  and  authority,  that  even  the  Cambridge 
Platform  is  a  dead  letter,  and  I  don't  see  wherein  we  differ  from  the  Baptists ; 
we  are  alike  Independent." 

5 


66  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

which  we  have  any  members  from,  and  at  present  some  of  these 
are  vacant."* 

Of  the  church  on  Elizabeth  river  little  is  known.  It  seems  from 
commissary  Blair's  report  on  the  state  of  the  church  in  Virginia, 
that  it  existed  before  the  commencement  of  the  last  century. f  From 
the  fact  of  Mr.  Makemie's  directing  in  his  will,  that  his  dwelling- 
house  and  lot  on  Elizabeth  river  should  be  sold,  it  has  been  inferred 
that  he  had  resided  there  before  he  moved  to  the  opposite  side  of  the 
Chesapeake,  and  that  the  church  in  question  was  gathered  by  him. 
If  so,  it  must  have  been  formed  before  1690 ;  for  at  that  time 
Mr.  Makemie  was  residing  on  the  eastern  shore.  Others  have  sup- 
posed that  the  congregation  was  composed  of  a  small  company  of 
Scotch  emigrants,  whose  descendants  are  still  to  be  found  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Norfolk.  Though  reported  by  the  Presb3'tery, 
they  seem  to  have  had  little  connection  with  that  body.  The  name  of 
their  pastor,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Macky,  never  appears  on  the  minutes  as 
a  member. | 

It  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  altogether  the  statements  given  in  the 
Presbyterial  letter  quoted  above,  with  the  facts  recorded  on  the 
minutes.  For  example,  it  is  said  there  were  four  churches  in  Mary- 
land in  connection  with  the  Presbytery  in  1710,  whereas  the  minutes 
mention  at  least  five.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  when  two  con- 
gregations were  under  the  care  of  the  same  pastor,  they  were  not 
counted  separately.    These  congregations  were  Upper  Marlborough. 

*  Letter-book  of  the  Presbytery. 

f  Dr.  Hill's  Sketches,  No.  5. 

X  In  the  minutes  for  1712,  thore  is  a  record  to  the  following  effect:  —  "A 
complaint  of  the  melancholy  circumstances  that  the  Rev.  John  Macky,  on 
Elizabeth  river,  Virginia,  labours  under,  [being  made]  by  Mr.  Henry,  the  Pres- 
bytery was  concerned ;  and  Mr.  John  Hampton  saying,  he  designed  to  write 
to  him  on  an  affair  of  his  own,  Presbytery  desired  him  to  signify  their  regard 
to,  and  concern  for  him."  Dr.  Hill  supposes,  from  the  interest  taken  by  Mi. 
Henry  in  Mr.  Macky's  case,  that  they  came  over  from  Ireland  together  at  the 
instance  of  Mr.  Makemie.  His  name,  however,  would  rather  lead  to  the  con- 
jecture that  he  came  from  Scotland,  whence  it  is  known  Mr.  Makemie  endea- 
voured to  procure  ministers  for  this  country. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  67 

Snowhill,  Rehoboth,  Monokin,  and  Wicomico.*  The  first  of  these 
was  formed  by  a  company  of  Scotch  emigrants,  who  came  to  this 
country  with  their  pastor,  Rev.  Nathaniel  Taylor,  about  the  year 
1690. f  The  other  four  churches  were  in  Somerset  county,  on  the 
eastern  shore,  and  were  the  fruits  of  Mr.  Makemie's  labours.  Of 
this  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  as  his  memory  is  still  cher- 
ished among  them,  and  as  there  is  neither  tradition  nor  record  of 
any  other  Presbyterian  minister  in  that  district  at  the  date  of  their 
formation. |  Of  Snowhill,  Mr.  Spence  gives  the  following  account : 
"  A  town  to  be  called  Snowhill,  was  established  in  Somerset,  now 
Worcester  county,  by  an  act  of  the  provincial  legislature,  passed  in 
1684,  and  I  believe,"  he  adds,  "that  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
that  place  is  nearly  or  quite  as  old  as  the  town.  Snowhill  was 
settled  by  English  Episcopalians,  and  Scotch  and  Irish  Presby- 
terians ;  and  it  is  certain  that  persons  resided  there  at  the  time,  or 
soon  after  the  time  in  which  the  town  was  laid  out,  who  were  after- 
wards members  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  My  ancestor,  to  whom 
I  have  already  alluded,  was  a  ruling  elder  in  that  church. "§  Of 
this  family  of  churches  Rehoboth  is  commonly  considered  to  be  the 
eldest.  It  consisted  originally  of  English  dissenters.  Their  first 
pastor  was  the  Rev.  Mr.  Makemie,  who,  in  his  will,  directs  his  exe- 
cutrix "  to  make  over  and  alienate  the  lot  on  which  the  meeting- 
house is  built,  in  an  ample  manner,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as 
shall  be  required  for  the  ends  and  uses  of  a  Presbyterian  congrega- 
tion, as  if  I  were  personally  present,  and  to  their  successors  for 
ever,  and  to  none  else  but  to  such  as  are  of  the  same  persuasion  in 
matters  of  religion. "||     It  may  be  inferred  from  the  terms  of  this 

*  According  to  Mr.  Spence,  "  there  is  record  evidence  of  the  fact,  that  there 
were  five  church  edifices,  and  as  many  organized  Presbyterian  churches  in 
Somerset  county,  on  the  13th  of  March,  1705." —  Spence's  Letters,  p.  82.  This 
evidence,  which  is  given  in  the  appendix  to  the  Letters,  consists  in  an  extract 
from  the  records  of  the  court  which  names  four  meeting-houses  in  which  Mr. 
Hampton  and  Mr.  McNish  were  authorized  to  preach.  To  these  are  to  be 
added  Rehoboth  and  Upper  Marlborough,  making  six  congregations. 

f  See  above,  p.  48.  J  Spence's  Letters.  \  Spence's  Letters,  p .  80. 

||  Spence,  p.  89,  and  also  Letter  xiii. 


68  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

bequest,  and  from  the  character  of  its  founder,  that  this  church  was 
strictly  Presbyterian  ;  a  point  which,  it  is  believed,  has  never  been 
disputed.*  The  congregations  of  Monokin  and  Wicomico  were 
under  the  pastoral  care  of  Mr.  McNish,  and  were  organized  before 
1705,  the  date  of  his  application  to  the  court  for  permission  to 
preach.  It  can  hardly  be  presumed  that  these  five  Presbyterian 
congregations  with  distinct  church  edifices,  some  of  them  within 
fifteen  miles  of  each  other,  could,  at  so  early  a  period,  and  in  so 
thinly  settled  a  part  of  the  country,  have  been  formed  in  a  few 
years.  And  as  they  all  existed  prior  to  1705,  and  as  Mr.  Makemie 
had  resided  and  laboured  in  that  district  for  near  twenty  years 
before  that  date,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  several  of  them  were 
formed  before  the  commencement  of  the  last  century.  That  they 
were  all  Presbyterian  churches  never  has  been  questioned.  As 
early  as  1723,  as  appears  from  a  recorded  deed,  the  church  at 
Monokin  had  eight  elders. f 

The  Presbytery  state  in  their  letter  that  they  had  five  congrega- 
tions in  Pennsylvania,  in  1710.  The  minutes,  however,  furnish 
the  names  of  the  following  places,  viz.  Philadelphia,  Neshaminy, 
Welsh   Tract,  New   Castle,  White   Clay,  Apoquinimi,  and  Lewes. 

*  Dr.  Hill,  after  saying  of  Mr.  Makemie,  that  "  he  was  in  principle  and  from 
conviction  a  thorough  Presbyterian,  and  wished  others  to  become  so  as  fast  as 
they  could  be  brought  to  bear  it,  and  until  that  time,  was  willing  to  exercise 
lenity  and  forbearance,"  quotes  the  passage  from  his  will  relating  to  Rehoboth, 
and  adds:  "  Here  he  is  upon  his  own  ground  ;  ground  which  he  had  regained 
from  the  world's  wide  waste  ;  he  had  trained  and  got  together  this  congrega- 
tion, and  had  organized  them  upon  consistent  Presbyterian  principles.  So 
that  I  have  no  doubt  but  there  were  ruling  elders,  regularly  inducted  into  office  in 
Rehoboth  and  Accomac  congregations,  under  the  pastoral  care  of  Mr.  Make- 
mie ;  and  at  Monokin  and  Wicomico  congregations,  in  Somerset,  Maryland, 
and  also  in  Snowhill,  and  the  meeting-house  on  Venable's  land.  The  two 
former  under  the  care  of  Mr.  McNish,  and  the  two  latter  under  Mr.  Hampton." 
—  Sketches,  No.  6. 

f  Spence's  Let.  Ap.  E.  That  deed  is  to  the  Rev.  William  Steward  and  others, 
the  elders  "  and  their  successors  for  ever,  for  the  use,  support,  and  continuance  of 
a  meeting-house,  for  the  worship  and  service  of  Almighty  God,  according  to 
the  Presbyterian  persuasion,  and  for  no  other  use  whatever."  The  number 
of  the  elders  is  mentioned  on  p.  193. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  69 

Welsh  Tract  is  first  mentioned  in  the  following  minute,  1710 : 
"  Upon  information  that  David  Evans,  a  lay-person,  had  taken 
upon  himself  publiely  to  teach  or  preach  among  the  Welsh  in  the 
Great  Valley,  Chester  county,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  the 
said  Evans  had  done  very  ill,  and  acted  irregularly,  in  thus  invad- 
ing the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  was  thereupon  censured."  It 
may  be  inferred  from  this,  that  Mr.  Evans  was  in  some  way  con- 
nected with  the  Presbytery,  but  not  that  there  was  a  church  already 
organized  among  the  Welsh-  White  Clay  Creek,  New  Castle,  and 
Apoquinimi  were  associated,  as  appears  from  the  following  record 
made  in  1709  :  "  Ordered  that  Mr.  Wilson,  (pastor  of  New  Castle,) 
preach  at  Apoquinimi  once  a  month  upon  a  week-day,  and  one 
Sabbath  in  a  quarter  till  the  aforesaid  meeting,  provided  always 
that  the  Sabbath-day's  sermon  be  taken  from  the  White  Clay 
Creek  people  their  time."  These  three  places  of  preaching,  there- 
fore, were  probably  numbered  as  one  congregation  in  the  Presby- 
tery's letter. 

The  first  church  in  Philadelphia  was  organized  about  1698.  A 
number  of  English  and  Welsh  dissenters,  together  with  some 
French  Protestants,  had  for  some  time  been  accustomed  to  assemble 
for  religious  worship,  in  connection  with  a  few  Baptists,  in  a  store- 
house at  the  corner  of  Chestnut  and  Second  streets,  belonging  to 
the  Barbadoes  Company.  Neither  party  had  a  settled  pastor,  but 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Watts,  a  Baptist  minister  of  Pennepek,  had  agreed 
to  preach  for  them  every  other  Lord's  day.  This  gentleman  says 
in  his  narrative,  "  that  divers  of  the  persons  who  came  to  that 
assembly  were  Presbyterians  in  judgment ;  they  having  no  minis- 
ter of  their  own,  and  we  having  hitherto  made  no  scruple  of  hold- 
ing communion  with  them  in  the  public  worship  of  God."*  The 
Presbyterians,  probably  finding  themselves  unpleasantly  situated, 
determined  upon  calling  a  minister,  and  invited  the  Rev.  Jedediah 
Andrews,  from  Boston,  who  accepted  their  invitation,  and  arrived 
in  Philadelphia  in  1698.  Shortly  after  his  arrival,  dissensions 
arose  between  the  Baptists  and  Presbyterians,  which  resulted  in 

*  Edwards's  Materials  for  a  History  of  the  Baptists,  vol.  i.  p.  104 ;  quoted 
by  Mr.  Hazard,  MS.  History. 


70  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

their  separation.  The  former  withdrew,  leaving  the  latter  in  pos- 
session of  the  store-house,  where  they  continued  to  worship  until 
1704,  when  they  removed  to  a  new  meeting-house  on  Market 
street.* 

*  Hazard's  MS.  History.  Dr.  Jackson,  who,  thirty  years  ago,  was  one  of 
the  oldest  members  of  the  Market  street  congregation,  gave  Mr.  Hazard  the 
following  account  of  the  origin  of  the  First  Church.  "  A  number  of  English 
dissenters,  Welsh  people,  and  French  Huguenots,  that  had  been  banished 
for  their  attachment  to  what  were  called  Puritanical  principles,  not  being 
satisfied  with  the  Episcopal  persuasion  (of  which  denomination  there  was 
already  a  congregation  in  the  city),  united  in  calling  the  Rev.  Jedediah  An- 
drews, from  Boston,  or  some  part  of  Now  England.  Accordingly,  in  1701,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Andrews  settled  in  Philadelphia.  In  1704,  a  small  Presbyterian 
church  was  raised  in  Market  street  between  Second  and  Third  streets.  Mr. 
John  Snowden,  tanner,  and  Mr.  Wm.  Gray,  baker,  were  elders  connected  with 
Mr.  Andrews.  In  process  of  time  the  society  was  greatly  augmented  as  to 
numbers  by  emigrants  from  Ireland."  Mr.  Andrews's  elder,  as  given  in  the 
minutes  of  Presbytery,  was  Mr.  Joseph  Yard,  whose  name  appears  without 
intermission  for  ten  years. 

Dr.  Hill  says,  "  That  the  records  of  the  First  Church  in  Philadelphia,  which 
Mr.  Andrews  organized  in  1701,  and  served  to  his  death,  in  the  year  1747, 
and  even  after  that  time  till  1770,  show  that  the  church  was  managed  by  the 
minister  and  committee-men  alone,  without  what  we  would  call  an  eldership 
nr  a  session  at  all.  In  the  year  1770,  they  chose  a  bench  of  elders,  who  were 
to  serve  but  one  year,  and  to  sit  and  act  conjointly  with  the  committee  in 
managing  their  ecclesiastical  affairs."  Sketches  No.  8.  Mr.  Spence,  whose 
Letters  are  repeatedly  and  strongly  recommended  by  Dr.  Hill,  is  unwilling  to 
allow  the  First  Church  in  Philadelphia  to  have  been  Presbyterian  at  all.  He 
Bays,  "  it  was  an  association  of  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  and  Presbyterians, 
and  their  minister  was  a  preacher  of  the  Baptist  persuasion.  Was  that  a  regu- 
larly constituted  Presbyterian  church  ?  I  cannot  consider  any  congregation 
organized  as  regularly  Presbyterian,  unless  constituted  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  that  form  of  government  adopted  by  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly 

of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  on  the  10th  day  of  February,  1045 The  Kirk 

of  Scotland,  so  far  as  human  arrangement  is  concerned,  is  certainly  the  mo- 
ther of  the  Irish  and  American  churches,  and  to  be  a  Presbyterian  church, 
her  principles  of  government  must  be  adopted."  p.  87.  Mr.  Spence's  zeal  for 
the  priority  of  the  Maryland  churches  carries  him  too  far.  The  First  Church 
in  Philadelphia  was  not  a  motley  collection  of  Presbyterians  ami  Baptists. 
The  two  parties  separated  and  formed  distinct  congregations  after  Mr.  An- 
drews's arrival.  Irish  Presbyterians  soon  constituted  a  large,  i^  not  a  predomi- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  71 

The  congregation  at  Neshaminy  was  a  Dutch  Presbyterian 
church.  Their  pastor  was  the  Rev.  Mr.  Van  Cleck,  from  Holland, 
and  the  letter  addressed  to  them  by  the  Presbytery  is  directed  to 
the  "Dutch  people."  That  they  were  regularly  organized  is  evi- 
dent from  a  minute  recorded  in  1711,  which  states  that  Mr.  Van 
Cleck's  absence  from  Presbytery  was  accounted  for  "  by  one  of  his 
elders,  sent  for  that  purpose." 

In  the  manuscript  history  of  the  church  in  New  Castle,  it  is 
stated,  that  the  first  account  of  a  Presbyterian  congregation  in 
that  town  is  about  1704,  at  which  time  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wilson  was 
the  pastor.  August  15,  1707,  a  deed  for  a  lot  of  land  was  made 
to  certain  persons  in  trust  "  for  the  use  of  the  Presbyterian  con- 
gregation in  New  Castle,  on  which  they  were  to  build  a  house  for 
public  worship."  The  church  at  Lewes  was  organized  about  the 
same  time,  though  no  record  goes  further  back  than  1708. 

The  two  congregations  in  Jersey,  were  Freehold  and  Wood- 
bridge.  The  former  was  constituted,  principally  by  emigrants 
from  Scotland,  about  1692.  Their  place  of  worship  was  long 
known  as  the  "Scotch  meeting-house."  It  was  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  that  Woodbridge  was  settled  partly  by  the 
Scotch,  and  partly  by  emigrants  from  New  England.  The  con- 
gregation is  first  mentioned  as  in  connexion  with  the  Presbytery, 
in  a  letter  dated  May  1708.  In  that  letter,  which  is  addressed  to 
several  New  England  clergymen,  the  Presbytery  say,  "  We  find  by 
divers  letters  which  have  passed  between  you  and  sundry  persons 
in  Woodbridge,  that  you  are  not  unacquainted  with  the  confusions 
and  distractions  arising  from  the  accession  of  Mr.  Wade  to  be  the 
minister  of  that  town,  and  the  aversion  of  a  considerable  part  of 
the  people  to  the  accepting  of  him  as  such."  It  is  probable  that 
it  was  the  Scottish  portion  of  the  congregation  that  was  opposed 
to  Mr.  Wade,  as  the  first  healing  measure  proposed  by  the  Presby- 
tery was  that  Mr.  Boyd,  the  Scotch  clergyman  of  Freehold,  should 

nant  part  of  the  congregation,  and  the  people,  and  all  their  early  pastors,  An- 
drews, Cross,  and  Ewing,  especially  the  two  latter,  were  through  evil  and 
through  good  report,  '  old-side'  men,  strenuous  to  a  fault. 


72  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCn 

preach  every  third  Sabbath  in  Woodbridge ;  and  Mr.  Wade's  ac- 
cession to  the  Presbytery  in  1710,  was  with  the  view  of  reconcil- 
ing the  disaffected  portion  of  his  people.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  ground  of  the  opposition,  it  came  from  the  majority  of  the 
congregation.* 

Besides  the  churches  in  connection  with  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, there  were  'several  others  organized  at  an  early  date  in 
various  parts  of  the  country.  In  his  History  of  South  Carolina, 
Dr.  Ramsay  says,  "  the  Presbyterians  formed  congregations,  not 
only  in  Charleston,  but  in  three  of  the  maritime  islands,  and  at 
Wilton,  Jacksonborough,   Indian-land,    Port-royal,  and    Williams- 

*  In  the  letter  just  quoted  it  is  said,  "  a  considerable  part  of  the  people" 
were  opposed  to  Mr.  Wade.  In  another  letter  they  speak  of  "  a  great  part  of 
the  people"  as  being  opposed  to  him ;  and  in  the  minutes  for  1712,  it  is  said 
that  he  acted  in  opposition  "  to  the  greatest  part  of  the  people." 

Besides  the  two  congregations  in  New  Jersey,  mentioned  in  the  text,  there 
was  a  third  which  had  some  connection  with  the  Presbytery  as  early  as  1708. 
In  that  year  a  request  was  presented  from  the  people  of  Cohanzy  that  Mr. 
Smith  should  be  ordained  as  their  pastor.  This  request  was  granted  ;  and  in 
1709,  Mr.  Smith  appears  as  a  member  of  the  Presbytery.  In  the  same  year, 
however,  he  is  spoken  of  as  going  to  New  England.  The  congregation  is  not 
mentioned  again  until  1712,  when  they  presented  another  petition  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, and  a  letter  was  written  to  them.  In  1714,  the  Rev.  Howell  Powell, 
a  member  of  the  Presbytery,  became  their  pastor,  and  their  connection  with 
that  body  was  thus  established.  The  whole  country  before  the  Revolution, 
about  the  Cohanzy  river,  Cumberland  county,  New  Jersey,  was  called  by  that 
name ;  but  the  congregation  so  designated  upon  our  minutes  must  have  been 
the  one  which  is  now  called  Fairfield ;  as  Avhat  is  called  Cohanzy  in  the  early 
minutes  is  called  Fairfield  in  the  minute  relating  to  their  pastor,  Rev.  Henry 
Hook,  made  in  1722.  This  congregation  had  its  origin  from  Connecticut,  as 
appears  from  a  law  passed  in  1697,  which  enacts,  "  that  the  tract  of  land  in 
Cohanzy,  purchased  by  several  people  lately  inhabitants  from  Fairfield  in 
New  England,  from  and  after  the  date  hereof,  be  erected  into  a  township  and 
be  called  Fairfield."  For  this  fact  the  writer  is  indebted  to  L.  Q.  C.  Elmer, 
Esq.  of  Bridgeton,  New  Jersey. 

The  people  of  Maidenhead  and  Hopewell,  West  Jersey,  are  also  mentioned 
in  the  minutes  as  early  as  1709,  when  Mr.  Smith  was  directed  to  preach  to 
them  on  his  way  to  or  from  New  England.  In  1711,  they  applied  to  the  Pres- 
bytery for  assistance  in  obtaining  a  pastor. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  73 

burg."*  And  again,  "the  Presbyterians  were  among  the  first 
settlers,  and  were  always  numerous  in  South  Carolina.  Their 
ministers  in  the  maritime  districts  were  mostly  from  Scotland  and 
Ireland,  men  of  good  education,  orderly  in  their  conduct,  and 
devoted  to  the  systems  of  doctrine  and  government  established  in 
Scotland.  In  conjunction  with  them  the  Independents  or  Congre- 
gationalists  were  formed  into  a  church  in  Charleston  about  the  year 
1690,  and  after  being  about  forty  years  united,  they  separated  and 
formed  different  churches.  Rev.  Archibald  Stobs  took  charge  of 
the  church  in  the  autumn  of  1700,  and  the  Rev.  William  Living- 
ston in  1704." f  The  Presbytery  of  Charleston,  he  says,  "was 
constituted  at  an  early  period  of  the  18th  century,  agreeably  to 
the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Church  of  Scotland."  J  The 
distance  of  these  southern  churches  from  those  about  Philadelphia, 
and  the  difficulty  of  communication,  sufficiently  account  for  there 
being  no  connection  between  them.  A  union  did  not  take  place 
until  the  year  1800,  when  the  Presbytery  of  Charleston  connected 
itself  with  the  Synod  of  Carolina. 

What  "  the  some  places  in  New  York"  were,  whence  the  Pres- 
bytery had  members,  as  stated  in  their  letter  of  1710,  does  not 
appear  from  the  minutes.     No  minister,  congregation,  or  elder,  is 

*  Ramsay's  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  16.  f  Ibid.  p.  25. 

X  Mr.  Hazard's  MSS.  contain  the  following  extract  from  a  "  Letter  from 
South  Carolina,"  published  in  London,  1732,  (second  edition,)  but  dated, 
"Charleston,  June  1,  1710."  "There  are  eight  ministers  of  the  Church  of 
England ;  three  French  Protestant  churches,  whereof  two  of  their  ministers 
have  lately  proselyted  to  the  church ;  five  of  British  Presbyterians ;  one  of 
Anabaptists,  and  a  small  number  of  Quakers.  The  ministers  of  the  Church 
of  England  have  each  £100  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury,  besides  contribu- 
tions and  perquisites  from  their  parishioners.  The  other  ministers  are  main- 
tained by  voluntary  subscriptions.  The  proportions  which  the  several  par- 
ties in  religion  do  bear  to  each  other,  and  to  the  whole,  are  at  present  as  fol- 
lows: 

Episcopal  party  to  the  whole       .         .        .        .         as  4J  to  10 

Presbyterian  party  including  the  French  who  retain 
their  own  discipline,  to  the  whole   .         .         .        as  4^  to  10 

Anabaptists  do.  do.  as     1  to  10 

Quakers  do.  do.  as    £  to  10." 


74  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

there  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  that  province.  There  were  indeed 
Presbyterians  in  the  city  of  New  York,  as  early  as  1707,  who  had 
principally  emigrated  from  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  but  they 
were  so  few  that  they  had  neither  a  church  to  worship  in,  nor  a 
minister  to  lead  their  worship.  The  congregation  was  organized, 
and  Mr.  Anderson  called  as  their  pastor  in  1717.  The  church 
in  Jamaica  appears  to  have  become  connected  with  the  Presbytery 
in  1712  ;  that  of  Newtown  in  1715  ;  that  of  Southampton  in  1716. 
Several  of  the  churches  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  Presbytery 
in  1710,  were  not  in  connection  with  that  body  at  the  time  of  its 
organization.  This  was  the  case  in  regard  to  Neshaminy,  the 
Welsh  Tract,  and  Woodbridge.  Of  the  remainder,  it  appears  from 
the  preceding  account,  that  the  four  or  five  in  Maryland  were  strictly 
Presbyterian.  Those  in  Pennsylvania  were  all  composed  predomi- 
nantly of  Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyterians,  except  the  first  church 
in  Philadelphia.  This  appears  from  the  statement  of  Mr.  Blair, 
that  "  all  our  congregations  in  Pennsylvania,  except  two  or  three, 
chiefly  are  made  up  of  people  from  that  kingdom,"  i.  e.  Ireland.* 
This  was  written  in  1744,  when  the  Dutch  congregation  of  Nesha- 
miny, two  Welsh  congregations  in  the  valley,  besides  the  mixed 
church  in  Philadelphia,  had  long  been  connected  with  the  Presby- 
tery. The  two  or  three  exceptions,  therefore,  are  accounted  for ; 
the  remainder,  which  includes  all  the  original  churches,  except  that 
of  Philadelphia,  were,  according  to  Mr.  Blair,  composed  principally 
of  Irish  Presbyterians. f  There  were,  doubtless,  a  good  many 
Dutch  and  Swedes  included  in  the  congregations  in  the  lower  counties 
on  the  Delaware,  as  they  were  the  earliest  and  principal  settlers  of 
those  counties,  and  as  the  names  of  church  members  occurring  on 
the  minutes,  would  also  seem  to  intimate.     In  Jersey,  the  church 

*  Account  of  the  revival  in  New  Londonderry,  by  Samuel  Blair,  p.  11. 

f  Mr.  Andrews  seems  to*  say  the  same  thing  in  a  letter,  written  in  1730. 
"  Such  a  multitude  of  people  coming  in  from  Ireland  of  late  years,  our  congre- 
gations are  multiplied  to  the  number  of  fifteen  or  sixteen,  -which  are  all,  but 
two  or  three,  furnished  with  ministers  ;  all  Scotch  or  Irish,  but  two  or  three." 
"Whether  this  means  that  all  the  ministers,  or  all  the  congiv.^atiuns  were  Scotch 
or  Irish,  except  two  or  three,  it  agrees  with  the  statement  of  Mr.  Blair,  written 
fourteen  years  later. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  75 

in  Freehold  was  the  only  one  at  first  belonging  to  the  Presbytery. 
As  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  therefore,  the  congregations  connected 
with  the  Presbytery  at  the  time  of  its  formation  were  all  strictly 
Presbyterian,  unless  the  First  Church  in  Philadelphia  be  considered 
an  exception.  Up  to  1710,  the  only  Presbyterian  church  in  which 
there  was  an  appreciable  number  of  New  England  men,  was  Wood- 
bridge,  and  that,  unfortunately,  gave  the  Presbytery  more  trouble 
than  all  the  rest  put  together.  This,  however,  appears  to  have 
arisen  quite  as  much,  to  say  the  least,  from  the  character  of  the 
minister,  as  from  that  of  the  people.*  As  far  then  as  the  character 
of  the  original  congregations  is  concerned,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
find  any  church  more  homogeneous  in  its  materials  than  our  own ; 
certainly  not  the  church  of  Scotland  ;  and  certainly  not  the  churches 
of  New  England.  The  former  contained,  proportionally,  more 
members  inclined  to  Episcopacy,  and  the  latter  more  inclined  to 

*  It  is  evident  that  the  opposition  to  Mr.  W.  was  Hot  made  on  ecclesiastical 
grounds  exclusively.  The  Presbytery  in  their  letter  to  the  people  in  Wood- 
bridge,  announcing  his  accession  to  their  body,  say,  "nothing  appearing  against 
him  sufficiently  attested,  we  judged  it  unjust  to  deny  his  desire."  In  the  fol- 
lowing year,  1711,  they  say,"  diverses  of  the  people  of  Woodbridge  appeared, 
some  for  and  some  against  Mr.  Wade,  and  grievous  scandals  were  charged 
against  him,  against  which  he  made  the  best  vindication  he  could,  but  not  so 
good  but  that  we  thought  it  convenient  to  advise  him  to  demit  his  pastoral  re- 
lation to  the  whole  people  of  Woodbridge." — See  Letter  to  Cotton  Mather.  In 
the  same  letter  the  Presbytery  accused  him  of  having  violated  his  promise  to 
them.  Wearied  out  by  these  contentions  and  misconduct,  they  at  last,  in  1712, 
authoritatively  dismissed  him,  and  appointed  Mr.  Gillespie  to  supply  the  con- 
gregation. There  was  every  prospect  of  the  people  uniting  in  him,  when  Mr. 
Wade  returned  from  Boston,  bringing  a  letter  from  Dr.  Mather,  in  which  he 
recommended  a  Mr.  Wiswall  for  their  pastor.  This  renewed  the  contention, 
some  declaring  for  that  gentleman,  and  some  for  Mr.  Gillespie.  It  was  to  re- 
monstrate with  Dr.  Mather  for  this  unfortunate  interference,  and  to  beg  him 
to  use  his  influence  with  the  New  England  portion  of  the  people,  to  unite  in 
settling  Mr.  Gillespie,  that  the  above  quoted  letter  was  written.  This  the 
Doctor  appears  to  have  done,  though  not  with  much  effect,  as  Mr.  Gillespie 
soon  left  the  place.  Within  a  year  or  two,  Mr.  John  Pierson  took  charge  of 
the  congregation,  and  things  went  on  smoothly,  which  seems  to  show  that  the 
opposition  to  Mr.  Wade  was  something  more  than  opposition  to  New  England 


76  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

Presbyterianism,  than  were  to  be  found  in  our  church  inclined  to 
Congregationalism. 

The  next  subject  of  inquiry  is  the  character  of  the  ministers  of 
which  the  Presbytery  was  at  first  composed.  The  original  members, 
as  far  as  can  be  ascertained  from  the  minutes,  were  Messrs.  Francis 
Makemie,  Jedediah  Andrews,  George  McNish,  John  Wilson,  Natha- 
niel Taylor,  and  Samuel  Davis.  To  these  may  be  added  John  Boyd, 
who  became  a  member  by  ordination  in  1706.  Of  the  original 
members  of  the  Presbytery,  Mr.  Hazard  says,  "  It  is  probable  that 
all,  except  Mr.  Andrews,  were  foreigners  by  birth,  and  that  they 
were  ordained  to  the  gospel  ministry  in  Scotland  and  Ireland."* 
The  correctness  of  this  statement  can  be  proved  by  documentary 
evidence  in  regard  to  most  of  these  gentlemen,  and  by  the  strongest 
circumstantial  evidence  with  regard  to  the  others. 

The  Rev.  Francis  Makemie,  who  is  often  spoken  of  as  the  father 
of  our  church,  was  settled  in  Accomac  county,  Virginia,  anterior 
to  the  year  1690,  when  his  name  first  appears  upon  the  county  re- 
cords. According  to  some  accounts  he  was  a  native  of  Scotland  ; 
according  to  Mr.  Spence,  of  the  North  of  Ireland.  Mr.  Spence 
thinks  that  he  was  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal.  It  is 
certain,  however,  that  he  came  to  this  country  an  ordained  minister, 
and  was  "  in  principle  and  upon  conviction,  a  thorough  Presby- 
terian." He  is  represented  as  having  been  "  a  venerable  and  im- 
posing character,  distinguished  for  piety,  learning,  and  much  steady 
resolution  and  perseverance."  His  successful  labours  in  the  east- 
ern shore  of  Maryland,  his  imprisonment  in  New  York  for  preach- 
ing in  that  city,  and  his  able  defence  upon  his  trial,  are  familiarly 
known  to  the  public.  He  died  in  1708,  leaving  a  large  estate. f 
In  1704,  he  went  to  Europe  and  returned  the  following  year,  accom- 
panied by  two  Presbyterian  ministers  from  Ireland,  Messrs.  Hamp- 

*  MS.  History.  As  this  statement  was  written  perhaps  thirty  years  ago,  it 
must  be  regarded  as  impartial. 

f  Spenoe's  Letters  contain  much  information  relating  to  Mr.  Makemie.  In 
Smith's  History  of  New  York  may  be  found  an  instructive  account  of  his  im- 
prisonment and  trial ;  and  the  most  interesting  portion  of  Dr.  Hill's  sketches 
relate  to  his  character  and  labours. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  77 

ton  and  McNish.*  The  former  became  the  pastor  of  Snowhill ;  the 
latter  of  Monokin  and  Wicomico,  in  the  first  instance,  but  removed 
in  1712,  to  Jamaica,  upon  Long  Island. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Rev.  Samuel  Davis  was  another  of  the 
ministers,  whom  Mr.  Makemie,  during  his  last  visit  to  Europe, 
induced  to  come  to  this  country.  The  scene  of  his  labours,  from 
1705  or  1706,  onwards,  was  the  churches  planted  by  Mr.  Make- 
mie, or  those  in  their  immediate  vicinity.  He  was  appointed  to 
take  part  in  the  installation  of  Mr.  Hampton,  at  Snowhill,  in  con- 
nection with  Mr.  McNish.  And  subsequently  he  was  associated  in 
another  service  with  Mr.  Hampton  and  Mr.  Henry.  It  appears 
from  the  minutes  of  1715,  that  he  had  for  some  time  been  fixed  at 
Lewes  or  its  neighbourhood,  as  the  people  applied  to  have  another 
minister,  as  Mr.  Davis  could  not  take  the  pastoral  charge  of  the 
congregation.  He  finally  succeeded  Mr.  Hampton  as  minister  of 
Snowhill.  All  these  circumstances  connect  him  with  the  churches 
in  the  peninsula,  all  whose  ministers,  Makemie,  Hampton,  McNish, 
Henry,  Clement,  Steward,  Thompson,  were  from  Scotland  or  Ire- 
land. If  Davis  was  not,  he  is  the  only  exception.  In  the  absence 
of  all  evidence  to  the  contrary,  or  of  any  circumstance  connecting 
him  with  New  England,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
he  had  the  same  origin  with  his  associates. 

Mr.  Nathaniel  Taylor,  as  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  was  a 
minister  from  Scotland,  who  came  to  this  country  with  his  congregation 
and  settled  in  Upper  Marlborough,  about  1690.  Mr.  John  Wilson 
was  the  pastor  of  the  church  in  New  Castle.  As  he  died  in  1708, 
there  are  few  memorials  of  him  now  preserved.  That  he  was  from 
Scotland  may  be  inferred  not  only  from  the  place  of  his  labours 
and  his  associates,  but  from  his  being  appointed  to  conduct  the  cor- 
respondence with  that  country.  It  was  natural  that  those  members 
of  the  Presbytery,  who  came  from  Scotland  or  Ireland,  should  be 
designated  to  write,  as  occasion  required,  to  the  places  whence 
they  came.     This  natural  rule,  it  is  evident  from  the  minutes,  was 

*  Spence,  p.  70.  This  writer  speaks  of  Mr.  Hampton  as  coming  from  Ire- 
land ;  but  Dr.  Rodgers  of  New  York,  and  other  ministers  of  our  church  oi 
the  last  generation,  always  spoke  of  him  as  a  Scotchman. 


78  PRESBYTERIAN     CnURC  II 

actually  adopted.  Mr.  Andrews  was  the  great  penman  of  the 
Presbytery,  and  as  he  lived  in  Philadelphia,  and  kept  the  books, 
a  great  part  of  the  burden  of  conducting  the  correspondence  of  the 
body,  which  was  no  slight  matter,  was  devolved  upon  him.  Yet  it 
is  believed  there  is  no  instance  in  the  early  minutes  of  his  being 
appointed  to  write  to  either  Scotland  or  Ireland.  This  duty  was 
assigned  to  Makemie,  Wilson,  Anderson,  Gillespie,  Henry.*  As 
all  these  are  known  to  have  been  Scotch  or  Irish,  it  is  hardly  to  be 
doubted,  as  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  to  the  contrary,  that 
Mr.  Wilson  was  also.  Mr.  John  Boyd,  the  minister  of  Freehold, 
who  became  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  in  1706,  was  also  a  na- 
tive of  Scotland,  f 

As  far  then  as  can  be  ascertained,  all  the  original  members  of 
the  Presbytery  were  either  Scotch  or  Irish,  except  Mr.  Andrews. 
As  this  gentleman  was  among  the  first,  so  he  was  one  of  the  most 
laborious  and  useful  members  of  the  Presbytery.  All  the  minutes, 
both  of  the  Presbytery  and  Synod,  for  a  long  series  of  years,  are 
in  his  handwriting.  He  was  also  the  treasurer  of  the  Synod,  and 
seems  to  have  been  one  of  its  most  punctual  and  active  members-! 
He  was  probably  a  moderate  man.  His  name  never  appears  at- 
tached to  any  protest  or  counter-protest,  and  he  says  he  was  often 
instrumental  in  healing  differences  between  the  brethren  of  con- 
flicting views.     He  did  not  join  in  the  protest  excluding  the  New 

*  "  Ordered  that  Mr.  Makemie  write  to  Scotland,  to  Mr.  Alexander  Colden, 
minister  at  Oxam,  about  coming  to  this  country."  p.  4.  "  Ordered  that  Mr. 
Henry  write  to  the  Presbytery  of  Dublin."  p.  8.  "  Ordered  that  Mr.  Wilson 
and  Mr.  Anderson  write  to  the  Synod  of  Glasgow."  p.  8.  "  Ordered  that  Mr. 
Gillespie  write  to  the  Synod  of  Glasgow."  p.  22.  "  Ordered  that  Mr.  Magill, 
and  Mr.  Young  write  to  the  Synod  of  Glasgow  and  Air,  and  to  Principal  Stir- 
ling." p.  55. 

f  MS.  History  of  Freehold,  quoted  above. 

X  His  name  occurs  in  the  list  of  ministers  as  present  at  Presbytery  in  1700. 
From  that  time  it  is  never  missed  until  his  death  in  1746.  lie,  therefore,  atr 
tended  every  meeting  of  Presbytery  before  the  formation  of  the  Synod,  and 
every  meeting  of  the  Synod  until  '46,  when  his  name  appears  for  the  last  time. 
He  seems  also  to  have  kept  the  records  from  1708,  to  1747.  The  minutes  for 
that  year  appear  in  a  new  handwriting. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  79 

Brunswick  Presbytery  from  the  Synod,  at  the  time  of  the  schism, 
though  he  adhered  to  the  '  old-side'  throughout,  and  took  part  in 
all  their  ulterior  measures. 

So  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  origin  of  the  founders  of 
our  church,  and  is  in  reality  due  to  it,  that  the  preceding  investi- 
gation cannot  be  deemed  superfluous.  If  all,  or  any  large  propor- 
tion of  them,  had  been  previously  Congregationalists,  the  presump- 
tion would  undoubtedly  be,  that  the  form  of  government  which  they 
instituted  was  more  or  less  allied  to  Congregationalism.  And,  on 
the  other  hand,  if  they  were  all,  with  one  exception,  Scotch  or 
Irish  Presbyterians,*  the  presumption  is  equally  strong,  that  the 
system  which  they  adopted  was  in  accordance  with  that  to  which 
they  had  been  accustomed.  It  is,  however,  but  a  presumption  in 
either  case.  The  decisive  evidence  must  be  sought  in  their  decla- 
rations and  acts. 

The  increase  of  the  church  after  the  organization  of  the  Presby- 
tery was  rapid,  and  arose  principally  from  the  constant  immigra- 
tion of  Presbyterians,  ministers  as  well  as  people,  from  abroad,  and 
from  the  organization  of  those  already  scattered  through  the  coun- 
try. In  1707,  the  number  of  ministers  was  eight,  all  but  one  from 
Scotland  or  Ireland.  In  1716,  the  whole  number  was  twenty-five, 
of  whom  seventeen  were  still  living  and  in  connection  with  the 
Presbytery,  f     In  that  year  it  was  determined  to  form  four  Pres- 

*  Dr.  Hill  admits  that,  "  if  this  could  be  satisfactorily  proved,  it  would  go 
far  in  settling  this  controversy." — Sketches,  No.  7.  The  controversy  to  which 
he  particularly  refers,  is  about  the  standard  of  doctrine  adopted  by  the  first 
Presbytery. 

f  Of  the  eight  members  whose  names  do  not  appear  on  the  minutes,  in 
1716,  Messrs.  Makemie,  Wilson,  Taylor,  Boyd,  and  Lawson,  were  dead; 
Messrs.  Smith,  Wade,  and  Van  Cleck,  had  withdrawn.  Mr.  Smith  was  pro- 
bably from  New  England,  as  he  was  settled  over  the  Cohanzy  people  for  a 
short  time,  and  as  he  was  directed  to  preach  at  a  certain  place  in  New  Jersey, 
on  "  his  way  to  New  England."  These  are  slight  circumstances  whence  to 
infer  his  origin,  but  they  are  all  the  minutes  afford.  He  never  met  the  Presby- 
tery but  once,  and  that  was  in  1709.  Mr.  Wade  was  also  from  New  England; 
he  was  admitted  in  1710,  met  the  Presbytery  in  1711,  and  was  dismissed  in 
1712.     Mr.  Van  Cleck  was  from  Holland,  as  appears  from  the  correspondence 


60  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

byteries ;  the  first  to  consist  of  the  following  members :  viz. 
Messrs.  Andrews,  Jones,  Powell,  Orr,  Bradner,  and  Morgan,  and 
to  meet  at  Philadelphia  or  elsewhere ;  the  second  of  Messrs.  An- 
derson, Magill,  Gillespie,  Wotherspoon,  Evans,  and  Conn,  to  meet 
at  New  Castle ;  the  third  to  consist  of  Messrs.  Davis,  Hampton, 
and  Henry,  to  meet  at  Snowhill ;  and  the  fourth  of  Messrs.  Mc- 
Nish  and  Pumry,  on  Long  Island,  who  were  directed  to  endeavour 
to  induce  some  of  the  neighbouring  ministers  to  associate  with  them 
in  forming  a  Presbytery.  The  Presbytery  of  Snowhill  does  not 
appear  ever  to  have  met.  Most  of  its  members  became  attached 
to  that  of  New  Castle.  Of  the  above  seventeen  ministers,  Mr. 
Andrews  and  Mr.  Pumry  are  the  only  two  of  whom  there  is  any 
evidence  that  they  were  from  New  England,  and  the  latter  had 
joined  the  Presbytery  the  preceding  year.  Almost  the  whole 
amount  of  New  England  influence,  therefore,  in  the  Presbytery, 
from  the  time  it  was  formed  until  after  the  constitution  of  the 
Synod,  rests  with  Mr.  Andrews.  Of  the  two  other  New  England 
members,  Mr.  Smith  never  met  the  Presbytery  but  once,  and  Mr. 
Wade  but  twice.* 

respecting  him.  He  was  an  unworthy  member,  and  absconded  while  under 
process  in  1715. 

*  It  is  very  difficult,  after  such  a  lapse  of  time,  to  ascertain  the  origin  of 
the  different  members  of  the  Presbytery.  The  following  notices  contain  all 
the  information  which  the  writer,  after  a  good  deal  of  search,  has  been  able 
to  obtain. 

The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. — Mr.  Andrews,  known  to  have  been  from 
Boston,  a  graduate  of  Harvard  College  and  pastor  of  the  First  Church,  Phila- 
delphia. 

Rev.  Malachi  Jones,  pastor  of  the  church  at  Abingdon,  admitted  to  the 
Presbytery  as  an  ordained  minister  in  1714.  He  was  from  Wales,  as  appears 
from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Andrews  to  Dr.  Colman  of  Boston. 

Rev.  Howell  Powell,  pastor  of  the  Cohanzy  church,  was  received  as  an  or- 
dained minister  in  1713,  and  was  directed  to  obtain  further  testimonials  from 
his  friends  in  England.     He  therefore  was,  probably,  English  or  Welsh. 

Rev.  Robert  Orr,  pastor  of  the  congregations  of  Maidenhead  and  Hopewell, 
New  Jersey ;  afterwards  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  was  received 
as  a  licentiate,  and  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  in  1715. 

Rev.  John  Bradner,  pastor,  first  of  Cape  May,  afterwards  of  Goshen,  New 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  81 

From  1716  to  1729,  the  proportion  of  New  England  ministers 
was  considerably  increased ;  several  of  the  most  prominent  and 
useful  members  of  the  Synod  were  from  that  section  of  the  coun- 
try.    They  formed,  in  1728,  from  a  fourth  to  a  third  of  the  whole 

York,  was  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  in  1714.  It  is  stated  in  MS.  history  of 
Goshen,  that  he  was  from  Scotland. 

Rev.  Joseph  Morgan,  settled  first  at  Freehold,  and  then  at  Maidenhead  and 
Hopewell,  was  admitted  as  an  ordained  minister  in  1710.  He  was,  probably, 
from  Great  Britain. 

Presbytery  of  New  Castle  (and  Snowhill.) — Rev.  James  Anderson,  settled 
first  in  New  Castle,  afterwards  in  New  York,  and  finally  in  Donegal,  was  an 
ordained  minister  from  the  Presbytery  of  Irvine  in  Scotland ;  came  to  this 
country  in  1709,  and  was  received  into  the  Presbytery  in  1710.  See  Dr.  Mil- 
ler's Iafe  of  Dr.  Rodgers. 

Rev.  Daniel  Magill,  in  the  first  instance  pastor  of  the  church  at  Patuxent 
or  Upper  Marlborough,  was  sent  out  at  their  request  by  one  of  the  Presby- 
teries in  Scotland,  as  is  stated  in  the  MS.  history  of  that  church,  and  received 
into  the  Presbytery  in  1710. 

Rev.  George  Gillespie,  first  settled  at  White  Clay  creek  near  New  Castle, 
was  received  as  a  licentiate  from  the  Presbytery  of  Glasgow  in  1712. 

Rev.  David  Evans,  pastor  of  the  congregation  on  the  Welsh  Tract,  ordained 
by  the  Presbytery  in  1714. 

Rev.  Robert  Wotherspoon,  first  settled  at  Apoquinimi,  near  New  Castle,  was 
received  as  a  licentiate  and  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  in  1714.  He  was  pro- 
bably from  Scotland. 

Rev.  Hugh  Conn,  settled  in  Baltimore  county,  Maryland,  received  as  a 
licentiate  and  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  in  1715.  He  was  probably  from 
Ireland. 

Rev.  Samuel  Davis,  settled  in  the  peninsula,  was  one  of  the  original  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbytery.     Believed  to  have  been  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  John  Hampton,  pastor  of  Snowhill,  was  one  of  the  original  members 
of  the  Presbytery,  and  came  from  Scotland  or  Ireland. 

Rev.  John  Henry,  successor  of  Mr.  Makemie,at  Rehoboth,  was  received  as 
an  ordained  minister  in  1710.     He  came  from  Ireland. 

Long  Island  Presbytery. — Rev.  George  McNish,  pastor  first  of  Monokin, 
Maryland,  afterwards  of  Jamaica,  was  one  of  the  original  members  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  and  came  from  Scotland  or  Ireland.  See  Spence's 
Letters. 

Rev.  Samuel  Puinry,  minister  of  Newtown,  was  received  as  an  ordained  min- 
ister in  1715.  He  was  from  Connecticut,  as  the  writer  learns  from  Rev.  John 
Goldsmith,  pastor  of  the  church  in  Newtown. 

The  following  list  contains  the  names,  residence,  and  origin  of  the  several 

6 


82  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

body.  This  review  shows  the  great  injustice  of  representing  the 
Seotch  and  Irish  members  as  mere  intruders,  and  the  New  Eng- 
land or  Congregational  portion  as  the  true  original  Presbyterian 
Church.     As  far  as  the  character  of  the  body  may  be  inferred 

members  who  joined  the  Synod  from  1717  to  1729,  as  far  as  the  writer  has 
been  able  to  ascertain  the  facts.  It  is  hoped  that  others  may  be  able  to  cor- 
rect its  mistakes,  or  supply  its  deficiencies. 

Rev.  John  Thompson,  settled  first  at  Lewes,  afterwards  at  Chestnut  Level, 
was  received  as  a  probationer,  and  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  in  1717.  His 
arrival  in  the  country  and  first  application  to  the  Presbytery,  took  place  in 
1715.     He  was  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  John  Pierson,  settled  at  Woodbridge.  He  was  ordained  by  the  Pres- 
bytery in  1717.     He  was  from  New  England. 

Rev.  Jonathan  Dickinson,  pastor  of  Elizabethtown,  appears  as  a  member  of 
the  Synod,  for  the  first  time  in  1717.     He  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts. 

Rev.  Samuel  Gelston,  settled  first  at  Southampton,  afterwards  near  Elk  river, 
was  ordained  1717.  His  first  application  to  the  Presbytery  as  a  licentiate  was 
in  1715.     He  was,  it  is  believed,  from  Long  Island. 

Rev.  Henry  Hook,  settled  at  Cohanzy,  was  received  in  1718.  He  was  from 
Ireland,  as  appears  from  the  minutes  for  1722. 

Rev.  William  Tennent,  settled  at  Neshaminy,  was  received  as  an  ordained 
minister  of  the  established  church  of  Ireland  in  1718. 

Rev.  Samuel  Young,  settled was  received  as  an  ordained  minister 

from  the  Presbytery  of  Armagh  in  1718. 

Rev.  John  Clement,  settled  at  Rehoboth,  was  received  as  a  probationer  from 
Britain  in  1718. 

Rev.  William  Steward,  settled  at  Monokin,  received  as  a  probationer  from 
Britain  in  1718,  and  ordained  by  order  of  Synod,  together  with  Mr.  Clement. 

Rev.  George  Philips, Long  Island,  first  mentioned  as  a  member  of 

Synod  in  1718. 

Rev.  Joseph  Lamb, Long  Island,  first  mentioned  as  a  member  in 

1718.  These  two  gentlemen  were  associated  with  Messrs.  McNish  and  Pumry, 
in  the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island.  Their  names  are  very  rarely  mentioned  on 
the  minutes,  except  in  the  list  of  absent  members. 

Rev.  Robert  Cross,  settled  first  at  New  Castle,  afterwards  at  Jamaica,  Long 
Island,  and  finally  over  the  First  Church,  Philadelphia,  received  as  a  licen- 
tiate and  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  in  1719.  He  was  a  native 
of  Ireland,  as  is  stated  on  his  tomb-stone. 

Rev.  Joseph  Webb,  pastor  of  the  church  in  Newark,  is  first  mentioned  as  a 
member  of  Synod  in  1720.     He  was  from  New  England. 

Rev.  John  Orme,  pastor  of  the  church  of  Upper  Marlborough,  is  first  men- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  83 

from  that  of  its  founders,  it  was  a  purely  Presbyterian  church 
from  the  beginning.  It  was  not  founded  upon  Congregationalism, 
nor  by  Congregationalists.  It  was  founded  by  Presbyterians,  and 
upon  Presbyterian  principles,  and  those  who  subsequently  joined 

tionecl  as  a  member  of  Synod  in  1720.  He  was  from  Devonshire,  England,  as 
is  stated  in  the  history  of  his  congregation. 

Rev.  Moses  Dickinson,  mentioned  as  a  member  of  Synod  in  1722 ; 

brother  of  President  Dickinson.  He  was  settled,  after  leaving  the  Presbyte- 
rian church,  in  Norwalk,  Connecticut. 

Rev.  Thomas  Evans,  Welsh  Tract,  (Penkader,)  licensed  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle  in  1720,  and  stated  in  their  minutes  to  have  presented  creden- 
tials from  the  Presbytery  of  Carmarthenshire,  South  Wales.  Belonged  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Castle. 

Rev.  Alexander  Hucheson,  pastor  of  Bohemia  and  Broad  Creek,  received 
as  a  probationer  from  the  Presbytery  of  Glasgow  in  1722.  Belonged  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Castle. 

Rev.  Robert  Laing,  Somerset  county,  Maryland,  received  as  a  minister  from 
Great  Britain  in  1722,  and  referred  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle. 

Rev.  Thomas  Creaghead,  White  Clay  creek,  received  by  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Castle,  in  1724.  It  is  recorded  on  their  minutes,  p.  77,  that  he  had 
"  lately  come  from  New  England."  Whether  a  native  of  that  part  of  the 
country  or  of  Ireland  is  not  known. 

Rev.  Joseph  Houston,  Elk  river,  received  by  the  New  Castle  Presbytery,  as 
a  probationer,  "  lately  from  New  England"  in  1724,  and  ordained  by  them. 

Rev.  Adam  Boyd,  settled  in  Octarara,  received  by  the  New  Castle  Presby- 
tery as  probationer,  "lately  from  New  England,"  in  1724,  and  ordained  by 
them. 

Mr.  William  McMillan.  The  minutes  of  the  New  Castle  Presbytery  contain 
the  record  of  his  licensure  in  1724,  and  he  was  directed  to  labour  among  the 
people  in  Virginia,  where  he  resided. 

Rev.  Noyes  Parris,  settled  for  a  time  at  Cohanzy,  mentioned  as  a  member 
of  Synod  in  1725.  He  was  probably  from  New  England,  as  his  name  would 
indicate,  (Mr.  Noyes  was  one  of  the  early  ministers  of  Massachusetts.  Ma- 
ther's Magnalia,  vol.  i.  p.  436,)  and  when  he  left  the  Synod  in  1727  or  1728, 
he  is  reported  as  having  gone  to  New  England. 

Rev.  Archibald  Cook,  Kent  county  in  Delaware,  received  by  the  New  Castle 
Presbytery,  "  as  late  from  Ireland,"  and  ordained  by  them  in  1726. 

Rev.  Hugh  Stevenson,  Snowhill,  received  by  the  New  Castle  Presbytery, 
"  as  late  from  Ireland,"  in  1726,  and  ordained  by  them  in  1728. 

Rev.  Gilbert  Tennent,  New  Brunswick,  afterwards  pastor  of  the  Second 
Church,  Philadelphia.     He  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Castle  book,  »s  a  licen» 


84  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

it,  joined  it  as  a  Presbyterian  body.  Mr.  Andrews  was  the  only 
minister  from  New  England  who  had  any  permanent  connection 
with  the  church  before  1715,  and  he  so  far  from  being  a  Congre- 
gationalist,  was  an  "  old-side"  Presbyterian.  Of  the  six  or  seven 
additional  New  England  members  who  joined  the  Synod  before 
1729,  some  were  among  the  strictest  Presbyterians  of  the  whole 
body ;  and  not  one  of  them  was  either  a  Congregationalist,  or  in- 
clined to  Congregationalism,  if  any  dependence  is  to  be  placed 
upon  their  declarations  or  acts. 

Having  taken  this  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
during  its  forming  period,  in  order  to  ascertain  its  character,  as  far 
as  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  materials  of  which  it  was  composed, 
it  is  time  to  inquire  more  particularly  into  its  doctrines  and  disci- 
pline, during  the  same  period.  As  it  regards  doctrines,  the  point 
to  be  ascertained  is,  whether  the  Presbyterian  church  was  a  Calvin- 
istic  body,  and  required  adherence  to  that  system  of  doctrine  as 
a  condition  of  ministerial  communion,  or  whether  it  demanded  no- 
thing more  than  assent  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  The 
latter  position,  as  was  shown  in  the  introductory  chapter,  has  been 
unequivocally  assumed.  That  this  assumption  is  incorrect,  and  that 
our  church  has  from  the  beginning  required  adherence  to  Calvinism 
as  a  condition  of  ministerial  communion,  can  be  made  very  clearly 
to  appear.  It  is  admitted  that  the  Presbytery  required  of  its  mem- 
bers what  it  considered  soundness  in  the  faith,  or  orthodoxy.  The 
only  question  then  is,  what  was  orthodoxy,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
founders  of  our  church  ?  Was  it  faith  in  the  essential  doctrines  of 
the  gospel  ?  or  was  it  faith  in  that  system  of  doctrines,  which,  for 
convenience'  sake,  has  obtained  the  name  of  Calvinism  ?  This  is 
the  only  important  question.  The  method  which  they  adopted  to 
decide  upon  the  orthodoxy  of  a  member,  is  of  very  subordinate  con- 
sequence.    Whether  it  was  by  personal  examination  ;  by  satisfactory 

tiate  in  1725.  His  name  first  appears  as  a  member  of  Synod  in  1727.  He 
was  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  Nathaniel  Hubbell,  Westfield.  New  Jersey,  first  appears  as  a  member 
of  Synod  in  1728.  He  was  from  Massachusetts,  as  is  stated  in  the  MS.  His- 
tory of  Westfield. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  85 

testimonials ;  or  by  assent  to  a  prescribed  formula  of  doctrines,  is 
comparatively  of  but  little  moment.  The  question  is,  what  they  did 
require  ?  Not,  how  did  they  satisfy  themselves  ?  It  seems  a  mat- 
ter of  supererogation  to  prove  that  men  educated  towards  the  close 
of  the  seventeenth,  or  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  in 
Scotland,  Ireland,  or  New  England,  regarded  Calvinism  as  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  and  considered  any  essential  deviation 
from  it  as  a  disqualification  for  the  work  of  the  ministry.  Is  the 
faith  of  the  church  of  Scotland  at  that  period  a  matter  of  doubt  ? 
W  as  she  not  still  reeking  with  the  blood  of  her  children,  martyrs 
for  her  faith  and  discipline?  Were  men  who  had  suffered  so  much 
in  their  own  persons,  or  in  those  of  their  friends,  for  Presbyterian- 
ism,  likely  to  cast  it  away,  the  moment  they  got  to  a  place  of  per- 
fect security  ?  It  has  never  yet  been  made  a  question,  what  was 
the  faith  of  the  Puritans  who  first  settled  New  England,  or  what 
was  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  among  her  churches.  No  one  has 
ventured  to  assert  that  Christianity,  in  the  general  adherence  to  doc- 
trines absolutely  fundamental,  was  all  that  was  there  required  of 
ministers  of  the  gospel.  And  why  not  ?  Not  because  there  is  docu- 
mentary evidence  that  every  candidate  for  ordination  was  required 
to  sign  a  particular  formula,  but  because  the  opinions  of  those 
Puritans  are  a  matter  of  notoriety.  Their  opinions,  however,  were 
neither  more  pronounced,  nor  more  notorious  than  those  of  the 
churches  of  Scotland  or  Ireland.  Why  then  should  it  be  assumed 
that  the  ministers  of  the  latter  were  so  latitudinarian,  as  soon  as 
they  reached  this  country,  when  no  such  assumption  is  made  with 
regard  to  the  former  ? 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  great  majority  of  the  early  minis- 
ters of  our  church  were  either  ordained  or  licensed  before  they  be- 
came connected  with  it.  The  very  testimonials  which  they  brought 
with  them,  if  they  came  from  Scotland  or  Ireland,  stated  explicitly 
that  they  had  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  ;  if  they 
came  from  New  England,  they  brought  evidence  of  their  Calvinism 
just  as  unequivocal.  No  doubt  could  be  entertained  what  was  meant 
by  '  orthodoxy,'  in  certificates  given  by  men  who  expressed  so  much 
alarm  lest  '  the  churches  of  God  should  suspect  that  New  England 


8fi  PRESBYTERIAN    CnURCH 

allowed  such  exorbitant  aberrations'  as  the  denial  that  Christ  bore 
the  penalty  of  the  law.  It  was  just  as  natural,  and  as  much  a  mut- 
ter of  course,  for  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  to  receive  with 
confidence  men  coming  from  the  Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyteries,  as 
it  is  for  one  of  our  Presbyteries  to  receive  the  members  of  another. 
The  moment,  however,  it  was  discovered  that  these  certificates  de- 
ceived them,  they  began  to  adopt  other  methods  to  ascertain  the 
Calvinism  of  those  whom  they  admitted.* 

The  single  consideration,  then,  that  all  the  early  ministers  of  our 
church  came  from  places  where  Calvinism  not  only  prevailed,  but 
where  it  was  strenuously  insisted  upon,  is,  in  the  absence  of  all  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  sufficient  to  prove  that  they  were  not  so  sin- 
gular, or  so  much  in  advance  of  the  spirit  of  their  age,  as  to  bring 
down  their  demands  to  the  low  standard  of  absolutely  essential  doc- 
trines. It  is  not,  however,  merely  the  origin,  but  the  known  opin- 
ions of  these  ministers,  which  are  relied  upon  to  prove  the  Calvin- 
istic  character  of  our  church.  There  is  not  a  single  minister,  whose 
sentiments  are  known  at  all,  who  was  admitted  to  the  church,  or 
allowed  to  remain  in  it  during  the  period  under  review,  who  is  not 
known  to  have  been  not  only  a  Calvinist,  but  a  rigid  one.  This  was 
the  case  with  the  members  of  the  strict  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 
the  men  who  are  now  reproached  for  sectarian  bigotry  for  their  zeal 
for  this  very  subject.  It  was  the  case  with  Jonathan  Dickinson, 
Gilbert  Tennent,  and  every  other  minister  connected  with  the  church, 
before  1729,  who  has  left  any  memorials  of  his  opinions.  It  is  con- 
trary to  all  experience,  and  to  the  principles  of  human  nature,  that 
men,  who  have  been  accustomed  to  one  standard  of  doctrines,  should 
suddenly  lower  their  demands,  unless  they  themselves  were  disaf- 
fected towards  those  doctrines. 

Another  evidence  of  the  Calvinistic  character  of  our  church,  may 
be  found  in  the  circumstances  attending  the  reception  of  the  Rev. 
William  Tennent  in  1718.  That  gentleman  had  been  episcopally 
ordained  in  Ireland ;  but  on  coming  to  this  country,  applied  to  be 
received  as  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia.     That  body 

*  The  correctness  of  this  statement  will  appear,  when  the  '  adopting  act' 
3omes  under  consideration. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  87 

required  him  to  state  in  writing  the  reasons  of  his  dissent  from  the 
Episcopal  church.  One  of  the  most  prominent  of  those  reasons 
was,  that  the  church  of  Ireland  connived  "at  Arminian  doctrines." 
Are  we  then  to  believe  that  Mr.  Tennent  left  one  church  because  it 
connived  at  Arminianism,  to  join  another  which  tolerated  Pelagian- 
ism  ;  nay,  that  required  nothing  more  than  assent  to  the  absolutely 
essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  ?  Surely  the  Synod  would  have 
had  too  much  self-respect  to  insert  in  their  minutes  a  document 
charging  it  as  a  crime  upon  a  sister  church,  that  she  connived  at 
Arminianism,  if  they  themselves  did  the  same,  and  more. 

The  Calvinistic  character  of  our  church  is  further  evident  from 
the  fact,  that  as  soon  as  some  other  means  than  personal  examina- 
tion, or  the  testimonials  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  became  necessary 
to  ascertain  the  orthodoxy  of  its  members,  subscription  to  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  was  demanded  and  universally  sub- 
mitted to.  As  long  as  the  church  was  small,  and  all,  or  a  large 
portion  of  its  members  could  be  present  at  the  admission  of  every 
new  applicant,  the  most  natural  and  the  most  effectual  method  to 
obtain  a  knowledge  of  his  opinions,  was  personal  examination.  And 
as  long  as  the  churches  with  which  the  Synod  corresponded  were 
faithful  to  their  own  standards,  their  testimony  was  received  as 
sufficient  evidence  of  the  soundness  of  the  men  whom  they  recom- 
mended. But  when  from  the  multiplication  of  Presbyteries,  the  first 
method  became  impossible,  and  when  the  second  was  found  to  be  un- 
worthy of  confidence,  another  plan  was  adopted.  On  the  supposition 
that  the  church  was  to  remain  one,  and  that  it  had  any  zeal  for  its 
own  doctrines,  it  was  necessary  that  the  several  Presbyteries  should 
understand  each  other,  and  unite  in  adopting  a  common  standard  of 
orthodoxy.  Hence  arose  the  call  for  a  general  agreement,  to  make 
the  adoption  of  the  Westminster  Confession  a  condition  of  minis- 
terial communion.  There  can  be  no  stronger  evidence  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic character  of  the  church,  than  that  this  new  test  of  orthodoxy 
was  universally  admitted,  and  that  there  was  not  a  single  member 
of  the  Synod  who  objected  to  any  one  article  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  except  that  which  related  to  the  power  of  the  civil  magis- 
trates in  matters  of  religion.     That  article  was,  by  common  consent. 


88  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

discarded;  all  the  others  were  cordially  adopted.*  It  is  inconceiv- 
able that  a  body  of  men  should  have  unanimously  adopted  this  mea- 
sure, had  it  been  the  fixing  a  new  and  higher  standard  of  orthodoxy, 
and  not  merely  a  new  method  for  ascertaining  the  adherence  of  the 
ministry  to  what  had  always  been  demanded. 

Some  portions  of  the  church  felt  the  necessity  for  the  adoption 
of  this  measure  before  others.  One  method,  as  already  remarked, 
which  had  been  relied  upon  to  secure  the  church  from  unsound  min- 
isters, was  the  demand  of  testimonials  of  orthodoxy  from  all  appli- 
cants for  admission.  So  long  as  confidence  was  felt  in  those  giving 
such  testimonials,  the  church  was  satisfied  ;  but  when  suspicion  arose 
on  this  point,  something  more  was  demanded.  The  earliest  and 
most  serious  suspicions  were  felt  with  regard  to  the  Presbyteries  in 
the  north  of  Ireland ;  and  hence  the  New  Castle  Presbytery,  with- 
in whose  bounds  most  of  the  ministers  from  Ireland  came,  was  the 
first  that  insisted  on  something  more  than  clean  papers  from  the 
applicants  for  membership.  As  early  at  least  as  1724,  they  began 
to  require  the  adoption  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. f 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  whether  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia did  from  the  beginning,  regularly  and  formally  adopt  the 
Westminster  Confession,  or  not.  As  the  first  leaf  of  the  book  of 
records  is  lost,  it  is  impossible  that  this  question  should  be  satisfac- 
torily answered.  Dr.  Green  has  argued  for  the  affirmative  with  a 
great  deal  of  force,  and  has  rendered  it  highly  probable  that  the 
first  page  contained  some  statement  of  the  principles,  both  as  to 
doctrine  and  discipline,  on  which  the  Presbytery  was  formed.  It 
is  certain  they  had  "  a  constitution"  to  which  they  could  appeal, 
and  to  which  their  members  promised  subjection.  In  a  letter  written 
by  the  Presbytery  to  the  people  of  Woodbridge,  in  1712,  they  say 

*  The  correctness  of  this  statement  shall  be  proved  in  the  next  chapter. 

f  "  I  do  own  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  as  the  confession  of  my 
faith."  This  formula  -was  subscribed  by  Wm.  McMillan  in  1724,  by  Archibald 
W.  Cook  and  Hugh  Stevenson,  in  1726.  John  Tennent,  September  18.  1729, 
subscribed  the  following  declaration  :  "  I  do  own  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith,  before  God  and  these  witnesses,  together  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms,  with  the  Directory  thereto  annexed,  to  be  the  confession  of  my 
faith,  and  rule  of  faith  and  manners,  according  to  the  word  of  God. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  89 

that  Mr.  Wade  "  submitted  himself  willingly  to  our  constitution." 
Whether  this  constitution  was  a  written  document,  or  a  formal  re- 
cognition of  the  standards  of  the  church  of  Scotland ;  or  whether 
the  passage  quoted  merely  means  that  Mr.  Wade  had  submitted 
himself  to  the  acknowledged  principles  of  Presbyterianism,  cannot 
be  certainly  determined.  The  a  priori  probability  is  in  favour  of 
the  supposition  that  the  first  page  of  the  minutes  contained  some 
general  recognition  of  the  standards  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  as 
all  the  original  members  of  the  Presbytery,  as  we  have  every  rea- 
son to  believe,  except  Mr.  Andrews,  had  already  adopted  those 
standards  at  the  time  of  their  ordination. 

What  was  on  the  first  page  of  the  minutes,  however,  is  a  very 
different  question  from  another,  with  which  it  appears  sometimes 
to  be  confounded.  It  may  be  admitted  that  the  Presbytery,  at  the 
time  of  its  organization,  commenced  its  records  with  some  preamble 
stating  the  principles  upon  which  it  was  organized ;  but  was  it  cus- 
tomary to  require  a  formal  assent  to  the  Westminster  Confession  as 
a  condition  of  membership  ?  That  this  question  must  be  answered 
in  the  negative,  appears  plain  from  two  considerations.  The  first 
is,  tnat  from  1706  to  1729,  there  is  no  mention,  either  in  the  min- 
utes of  the  Presbytery  before  1716,  or  in  those  of  the  Synod  after 
that  date,  of  such  assent  having  been  demanded  or  given.  Where- 
as, after  the  adopting  act  in  1729,  the  record  is  uniformly  made 
that  the  new  members  had  adopted  the  Confession  of  Faith.  This 
certainly  seems  to  show  that  a  change  of  custom  was  effected  by 
that  act ;  that,  however,  some  Presbyteries,  for  their  own  satisfac- 
tion, had  made  the  demand  before,  the  original  Presbytery  and 
Synod  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  making  it.  In  the  second  place, 
the  history  of  the  adopting  act  itself  establishes  the  same  point. 
It  appears  that  the  church  had  hitherto  relied  upon  other  means  for 
securing  orthodoxy  in  its  ministers,  but  as  new  dangers  arose,  new 
means  of  guarding  against  them  were  devised.  The  overture  which 
led  to  the  adopting  act,  though  of  considerable  length,  and  though 
reciting  the  reasons  which  called  for  that  measure,  makes  no  allu- 
sion to  its  having  been  previously  the  custom  to  exact  assent  to  the 
Westminster  Confession,  but  speaks  of  it  as  a  new  measure,  designed 
to  meet  a  new  difficulty. 


90  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

The  question  whether  the  Westminster  Confession  was  uniformly 
adopted  by  new  members,  as  before  remarked,  is  one  of  subordi- 
nate importance.  The  church  did  not  become  Calvinistic  by  adopt- 
ing that  Confession  ;  but  adopted  it  because  it  already  was  so,  and 
alwiu^s  had  been.  Its  demands  were  in  no  respects  altered,  much 
less  were  they  raised,  by  the  act  of  1729.  That  act  was  nothing 
more  than  a  measure,  arising  out  of  the  altered  circumstances  of 
the  church,  designed  to  accomplish  a  purpose  which  had  hitherto 
been  attained  by  other  means.  The  New  England  Puritans  were 
not  stricter  Calvinists  in  1640,  when  they  adopted  the  Cambridge 
Platform,  than  they  were  in  1620  ;  nor  had  they  become  more  rigid 
in  1688,  when  they  recognized  the  Westminster  Confession.  No 
historical  fact  of  the  same  kind  admits  of  clearer  proof,  from  their 
origin,  declarations  and  acts,  than  that  the  founders  of  our  church 
were  Calvinists,  and  that  they  demanded  Calvinism,  and  not  merely 
faith  in  the  absolutely  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  as  the  con- 
dition of  ministerial  communion. 

The  next  subject  of  inquiry  is  the  form  of  discipline  adopted 
during  the  period  under  review.  If,  as  has  been  proved,  all  the 
original  members  of  the  Presbytery,  except  one,  were  Presbyterian 
ministers  from  Scotland  or  Ireland,  and  if  all  the  congregations, 
unless  the  First  Church  in  Philadelphia  be  partially  an  exception, 
were  composed  of  Presbyterians,  as  has  also  been  shown,*  then 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that,  at  least  at  the  beginning,  whatever 
it  may  have  become  afterwards,  our  church  was  a  Presbyterian 
Church.  These  considerations,  however,  are  merely  presumptive. 
They  are  of  great  weight,  if  confirmed  by  other  kinds  of  evidence, 
but  of  very  little,  if  contradicted  by  the  conduct  or  avowals  of 
those  concerned.  The  real  question  then  is,  what,  in  point  of  fact, 
was  the  form  of  government  on  which  the  founders  of  our  church 
acted  ?  Was  it  Presbyterianism  ?  or  was  it  Congregationalism  ?  or 
was  it  some  anomalous  system  partaking  of  the  features  of  both, 
yet  belonging  to  neither?  This  point  must  be  settled  by  an  inspec- 
tion of  the  records. 

It  is  plain  that,  whatever  these  men  really  were,  they  thought 

*  The  church  at  Woodbridge  was  not  one  of  the  original  congregations. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  91 

themselves  Presbyterians.  It  is  the  name  which  they  adopted. 
They  called  their  judicatory,  not  an  association  or  council,  but  a 
Presbytery ;  they  always  speak  of  Presbyterians  as  being  "  of  our 
persuasion."  In  corresponding  with  the  judicatories  of  Ireland 
and  Scotland,  they  called  themselves  Presbyterians,  to  those  who 
were  accustomed  to  affix  a  definite  meaning  to  the  term.  When 
writing  to  the  governor  of  Virginia,  in  order  to  inform  him  of  their 
principles,  they  tell  him  they  were  "  of  the  same  persuasion  as  the 
church  of  Scotland."*  In  1721,  the  Synod  declare  in  the  pre- 
amble to  an  overture  which  they  adopted,  that  they  had  "been  for 
many  years  in  the  exercise  of  Presbyterian  government  and  disci- 
pline, as  exercised  by  Presbyterians  in  the  best  reformed  churches, 
as  far  as  the  nature  and  constitution  of  this  country  would  allow."  f 
By  "Presbyterians  in  the  best  reformed  churches,"  must  be  un- 
derstood those  of  Scotland,  Ireland,  France,  and  Holland ;  and 
what  the  Presbyterianism  of  those  countries  was,  is  not  a  matter 
to  be  disputed.  It  is  only  asking  then  that  the  founders  of  our 
church  should  be  regarded  as  sane  and  honest  men,  when  it  is  asked 

*  The  date  of  this  letter  is  1738,  and  therefore  subsequent  to  the  period 
under  consideration.  But  as  it  states  what  the  character  of  the  church  was, 
and  always  had  been,  its  citation  is  not  out  of  place. 

f  "  As  far  as  the  nature  and  constitution  of  this  country  would  allow." 
This  is  a  limitation,  and  it  is  the  only  one  of  the  analogy  between  American 
Presbyterianism  and  that  of  the  best  reformed  churches.  How  did  the  nature 
or  constitution  of  this  country  prevent  the  carrying  out  the  Presbyterian 
form  of  government  ?  Did  it  forbid  the  government  of  the  church  by  Sessions, 
Presbyteries,  and  Synods?  Did  it  prevent  a  subordination  of  one  of  these 
courts  to  another  ?  Did  it  forbid  the  church  to  form  rules  for  the  manage- 
ment of  its  own  affairs  ?  It  clearly  did  none  of  these  things.  As  the  Synod 
declare  they  conformed  to  the  Presbyterianism  of  Europe,  so  far  as  the  con- 
stitution of  the  country  would  allow,  they  do  thereby  declare  that  they  con- 
formed in  every  thing  which  did  not  arise  out  of  the  peculiar  local  circum- 
stances of  the  foreign  churches,  either  as  civil  establishments,  or  as  controlled 
and  fettered  by  the  state.  This  is  all  the  difference  which,  in  1721,  a  man 
educated  in  Scotland,  and  who  had  been  for  nine  years  a  member  of  the  Synod, 
declared  he  could  see  between  our  Presbyterianism  and  that  of  his  native 
country.  Surely  he  is  a  better  judge,  and  a  more  competent  witness  than 
those  who,  at  a  distance  of  more  than  a  century,  pronounce  so  confidently  on 
the  early  character  of  our  church. 


92  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

that  they  should  be  regarded  as  a  Presbyterian,  and  not  as  a  Con- 
gregational or  nondescript  body- 
Still,  as  actions  speak  louder  than  words,  it  is  best  to  see  how 
these  men  acted ;  how  the  individual  congregations  were  organized 
and  governed ;  how  the  Presbyteries  were  constituted ;  what  au- 
thority they  exercised  over  their  churches  and  members  ;  and  what 
relation  subsisted  between  them  and  the  Synod.  Presbyterianism 
is  a  mode  of  church  government  as  definite  and  as  well  understood 
as  any  other  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity.  Its  fundamental  prin- 
ciple is,  that  the  government  of  the  church  rests  upon  the  Pres- 
byteries ;  that  is,  the  clerical  and  lay  elders.  It  demands,  there- 
fore, congregational,  classical,  and  provincial  assemblies  of  such 
elders,  i.  e.  Sessions,  Presbyteries,  and  Synods.  It  establishes  a 
regular  subordination  of  the  lower  of  these  judicatories  to  the 
higher,  giving  to  the  latter  the  right  of  review  and  control  over 
the  former.  And,  finally,  it  declares  the  determinations  and 
decisions  of  these  several  judicatories,  relating  to  matters  of 
government  and  discipline,  to  be  binding  upon  all  under  their 
authority,  when  not  inconsistent  with  the  word  of  God,  or  some 
previous  constitutional  stipulation.  Such  is  the  Presbyterian- 
ism of  Scotland,  Ireland,  France,  and  Holland.  This  is  the 
whole  system,  and  every  feature  of  it  is  found  in  the  form  of 
discipline  of  the  churches  of  those  countries.  The  question  is, 
are  they  all  found  in  our  system  as  at  first  established  ?  If  they 
are,  it  is  a  mere  waste  of  time  to  dispute  further  about  the  nature 
of  the  system.  It  is  what,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  has  been 
called  Presbyterianism,  and  it  may  safely  be  called  so  still. 

How  then  were  the  individual  congregations  governed  ?  It  has 
already  been  shown  that  all  the  churches  originally  belonging  to 
the  Presbytery  were  regularly  organized,  unless  the  First  Church 
in  Philadelphia  be  an  exception.  This  is  admitted  to  have  been 
the  case  with  the  four  or  five  Maryland  churches  organized  by  Mr. 
Makemie  before  1705.  There  is  no  doubt  it  was  the  case  with  the 
Scotch  church  of  Upper  Marlborough.  Of  the  fifteen  or  sixteen 
churches  in  Pennsylvania  in  1730,  all  were  Scotch  or  Irish  but  two 
or  three ;  and  of  these  three,  the  one  in  Philadelphia  was  the  only 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  93 

one  connected  from  the  beginning  with  the  Presbytery.  Of  the 
remaining  two,  one  was  a  regular  Dutch  Presbyterian  church.  Of 
those  in  New  Jersey,  Freehold  was  Scotch ;  Newark  was  settled 
by  English  Presbyterians,  and  had  elders  from  the  beginning,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  information  and  belief  of  Dr.  McWhorter. 
Elizabethtown  also  must  have  had  them  under  President  Dickinson, 
unless  he  acted  in  opposition  to  his  avowed  principles.  With  re- 
gard to  Cohanzy,  and  the  united  congregations  of  Maidenhead  and 
Hopewell,  the  facts  are  not  known.  Woodbridge  is  the  only  church 
of  which  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  it  was  managed  on  the 
Congregational  plan,  and  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  this  was  the 
case  even  there,  before  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Pierson  in  1714. 

It  is,  however,  highly  probable,  that  there  were  several  churches 
connected  with  the  Presbytery  before  1715,  which  were  but  im- 
perfectly organized.  This  could  hardly  have  been  otherwise  under 
the  circumstances  of  the  country.  Perfect  order  and  regularity 
are  not  to  be  expected  in  any  rising  community,  whether  civil  or 
ecclesiastical.  The  wonder  is,  even  on  the  assumption  that  the 
ministers  were  the  strictest  Presbyterians,  that  there  is  so  little 
indication  of  imperfect  organization  in  the  churches.  The  exist- 
ence of  such  churches  may  be  inferred  from  the  language  of  Mr. 
Andrews  in  1730.  In  a  letter  of  that  date,  he  says :  "  In  the 
Jerseys  there  are  some  Congregational  assemblies,  that  is,  some  of 
the  people  are  inclined  that  way,  being  originally  from  New  Eng- 
land, yet  they  all  submit  to  the  Presbyteries  readily  enough ;  and 
the  ministers  are  all  Presbyterians,  though  most  from  New  Eng- 
land." This  moderate  language  is  indeed  very  far  from  being 
decisive.  He  does  not  speak  of  Congregational  churches,  but 
merely  says,  that  "some  of  the  people  are  inclined"  to  Congrega- 
tionalism. This  is  just  what  might  be  expected  from  all  other  con- 
temporary accounts.  The  churches  there  were  composed  of  Dutch, 
Scotch,  and  New  England  people,  and  hence  the  moderate  and  cor- 
rect mode  adopted  by  Mr.  Andrews  of  stating  the  amount  of  Con- 
gregationalism among  them. 

A  more  decisive  proof  that  there  were  churches  imperfectly  or- 
ganized, in  connection  with  the  first  Presbytery,  upon  its  forma 


94  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

tion,  is  to  be  found  in  the  following  minute,  adopted  in  1714 : 
11  For  the  better  establishing  and  settling  of  congregations,  it  in 
ordered  and  appointed,  that  in  every  congregation  there  be  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  assistants  chosen,  to  aid  the  minister  in  the  man- 
agement of  congregational  affairs :  and  that  there  be  a  book  of 
records  kept  for  that  effect,  and  that  the  same  be  annually  brought 
here  to  be  revised  by  Presbytery."  p.  25.  The  next  year,  there 
is  the  following  minute  on  this  subject :  "  In  pursuance  of  an  act 
made  last  Presbytery,  appointing  every  minister  to  appoint  assis- 
tants and  session  book,  &c.  and  in  regard  divers  of  the  ministers 
have  not  complied  with  the  designs  of  said  act,  it  was  therefore 
ordered,  that  the  several  ministers  come  with  said  books,  and  per- 
form the  other  ends  of  the  said  act,  as  it  is  specified  therein."  p. 
28.  Again,  in  1716,  when  the  Presbytery  was  divided,  it  is  said: 
"  With  respect  to  session  books,  mentioned  in  our  last  year's  min- 
utes, it  is  ordered  that  they  be  brought  into,  and  revised  by  the 
respective  Presbyteries,  to  which  they  shall  after  this  time,  accord- 
ing to  our  preceding  appointment,  belong."  p.  34. 

It  is  certainly  to  be  inferred  from  these  minutes,  that  there  were 
some  congregations  in  1714,  which  had  no  regular  sessions.  From 
the  second  minute,  however,  it  would  appear,  that  the  difficulty 
related  more  to  session  books  than  to  the  sessions  themselves.  It 
is  surprising  that  any  one  should  attempt  to  prove  from  this  order 
of  1714,  that  there  were  no  elders  appointed  in  our  churches 
before  that  date,  when  the  reverse  is  perfectly  notorious.*     It  is 

*  "  Ruling  elders,"  says  the  Cincinnati  Journal,  July  30,  1838,  "  are  fre- 
quently called  assistants,  and  this  settles  the  question,  that  Dr.  Hill  is  right  in 
supposing  that  the  order  of  the  mother  Presbytery  in  1715,  to  their  churches 
to  choose  assistants,  meant  elders,  and  that  elders  had  not  been  elected  pre- 
viously." A  statement  so  much  at  variance  with  notorious  facts,  ought  not 
to  be  imposed  upon  Dr.  Hill.  The  Doctor  so  far  from  saying  that  elders  were 
not  elected  before  1715,  says  the  very  reverse:  "The  impression  has  been 
taken  up  by  some,  that  I  denied  that  there  were  any  such  officers  as  ruling 
elders  in  those  early  times.  I  never  meant  to  convey  this  idea." — Sketches 
No.  6.  In  the  same  No.  he  says,  "I  have  no  doubt  there  were  ruling  elders 
regularly  inducted  into  office  in  Rehoboth  and  Accomac  congregations  under 
the  pastoral  care  of  Mr.  Makemie,  and  at  Monokin  and  Wicomico,  in  Somer- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  95 

not  only  known  and  admitted,  that  the  Maryland  and  many  of  the 
Pennsylvania  churches  had  elders  from  the  beginning,  but  they  are 
constantly  recorded  as  present,  as  members  of  the  Presbytery. 
The  first  record  is  a  fragment  containing  the  minutes  of  an  after- 
noon session,  of  December  27, 1706,  when  no  elders  are  mentioned  ; 

sot,  Maryland,  and  also  in  Snowhill,  and  the  meeting-house  on  Venable's 
land."  All  these  congregations  were  formed  before  1705.  If  there  is  no 
doubt  that  there  were  ruling  elders  in  these  churches,  what  reason  is  there  to 
doubt  that  there  were  similar  officers  in  the  other  Scotch  and  Irish  churches, 
i.  e.  in  all  originally  connected  with  the  Presbytery,  with  one  exception  ? 

Dr.  Hill  makes  a  great  mistake,  when  he  says  that  "  these  elders  are  no 
where  spoken  of  as  elders,  under  that  distinctive  title  but  in  the  opening 
minute  at  the  commencement  of  each  session."  This  is  very  far  from  being 
correct.  See  the  memorandum  quoted  on  the  next  page  of  the  admission  of 
three  additional  elders,  after  the  commencement  of  the  meeting  in  1709.  In 
1710,  there  is  this  minute:  "Ordered  that  the  ministers  and  elders  of  this 
meeting  come  prepared,"  &c.  In  1711,  Mr.  Van  Cleck's  absence  was  excused 
"  by  one  of  his  elders  sent  for  that  purpose."  In  the  same  year,  "  inquiry  was 
made  of  the  ministers  ....  then  of  the  several  elders,"  &c.  These  are  only 
examples.  Dr.  Hill,  adds,  "  whenever  they  are  spoken  of  or  alluded  to  after- 
wards, they  are  called  representatives  of  the  people,  and  sometimes  the  min- 
ister's assistants."  That  this  is  incorrect  as  far  as  it  asserts  that  the  elders 
are  always  so  called,  has  just  been  shown.  They  are  sometimes  so  called. 
And  are  not  our  elders  the  representatives  of  the  people,  and  minister's  assis- 
tants ?  and  are  they  not  so  called  ?  Every  one  knows  that  these  were  com- 
mon designations  for  elders,  but  no  one  has  supposed  that  they  were  thereby 
proved  not  to  be  elders.  These  forms  of  expression  are  sometimes  inter- 
changed on  the  same  page.  For  example,  on  page  30,  it  is  said,  "  Mr.  Henry's 
representative  of  his  congregation  being  absent,"  &c.  and  then  in  the  next 
sentence,  "The  reasons  of  Pumry's  elder's  absence  were  inquired  into  and 
sustained."  It  may  be  supposed  that  this  diversity  of  form  was  intentional, 
and  that  some  congregations  sent  representatives,  and  some  elders.  It  hap- 
pens unfortunately  for  this  hypothesis,  that  Mr.  Henry,  whose  elder  is  called 
a  representative,  was  the  pastor  of  Mr.  Makemie's  favourite  church  of  Reho- 
both,  where  Dr.  Hill  says  he  doubts  not  there  were  regular  ruling  elders ;  and 
that  Mr.  Pumry  was  minister  of  Newtown,  Long  Island,  where,  if  any  where, 
we  should  expect  committee-men.  Besides,  on  p.  29,  we  find  Mr.  Edmunson 
mentioned  "  as  the  representative  of  the  church  at  Patuxent."  This  was  the 
Scotch  congregation,  elsewhere  called  Upper  Marlborough.  Nothing  can  be 
gained,  therefore,  from  this  source,  to  prove  that  representatives  were  not 
elders. 


96  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

an  occurrence  far  too  frequent,  even  now,  to  excite  surprise.  At 
the  next  meeting,  1707,  there  were  present  four  ministers  and  four 
elders,  and  from  that  time  onward  there  is  no  meeting,  either  of 
the  Presbytery  or  Synod,  of  which  elders  are  not  mentioned  as  con- 
stituting a  part.  In  1710,  three  ministers  were  admitted  as  new 
members,  and  it  is  immediately  recorded :  "  Memorandum  upon 
the  admission  of  those  ministers  above  mentioned,  three  more  elders 
sat  in  Presbytery,  namely,  Mr.  Pierce  Bray,  Mr.  John  Foord,  Mr. 
Leonard  Van  Degrift."  p.  9.  There  is,  therefore,  just  as  much 
evidence  that  there  were  elders  from  the  beginning  of  the  Presby- 
tery, as  that  there  were  preachers.  While  this  is  an  undeniable 
fact,  it  is  freely  admitted  there  were  churches  in  which  elders  were 
not  to  be  found.  The  wonder  is  that  such  churches  were  not  more 
numerous.  Perfect  organization,  as  before  remai'ked,  is  not  to  be 
expected  at  the  beginning  of  any  community.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  in  this  country  has  never  pretended  to  be  more  strict  than 
that  of  Scotland.  According  to  the  theory  of  that  church,  every 
congregation  should  have  its  own  elders.  Yet  knowing  it  was  vain 
to  try  to  make  bricks  without  straw,  it  wisely  ordered  that  this 
should  not  be  attempted,  and  hence  in  the  early  period  of  the  his- 
tory of  that  church,  there  were  multitudes  of  congregations  with- 
out a  session.  "  When  we  speak  of  the  eldership  of  particular 
congregations,"  says  the  book  of  policy  of  1581,  "we  mean  not 
that  every  particular  parish  kirk  can  or  may  have  their  own  par- 
ticular eldership,  specially  inlandward,  but  we  think  that  three,  four, 
more  or  fewer,  particular  kirks,  may  have  one  eldership  common  to 
them  all."  The  Presbyterianism,  therefore,  of  the  Scotch  and 
Irish  ministers  who  came  to  this  country,  need  not  be  very  vio- 
lently questioned,  if,  after  the  example  of  their  fathers,  they  ap- 
pointed elders  when  they  could  obtain  suitable  persons,  and  where 
they  could  not,  did  the  best  they  could  without  them.* 

*  It  is  somewhere  noticed  as  a  great  departure  from  Scottish  Presbyteri- 
anism, that  in  one  or  more  of  our  early  churches,  elders  were  elected  annu- 
ally. In  the  Scotch  church,  however,  this  was  originally  the  rule.  "  The 
election  of  elders  and  deacons  ought  to  be  made  every  year  once,  which  we 
judge  most  convenient  to  be  done  the  first  of  August  yearly,  lest  men  by  long 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  97 

After  all,  the  really  important  question  respects  the  principles  of 
the  founders  of  our  church.  What  form  of  government  did  they 
aim  at  introducing  ?  What  were  their  demands  ?  Most  of  the 
church 3S  were  regularly  organized,  some  few  were  not.  Was  the 
Presbytery  satisfied  with  this  ?  Were  they  willing  that  things  should 
remain  in  this  state,  or  that  the  Congregational  plan  should  be  in- 
troduced ?  Far  from  it.  They  "  ordered"  those  churches  which,  as 
yet,  had  no  sessions,  to  choose  them,  to  keep  regular  records,  and 
to  produce  them  annually  to  be  revised  by  the  Presbytery.  When 
this  "act"  was,  in  some  instances,  disregarded,  the  order  was  re- 
peated again  and  again.  It  is  hard  to  see  what  a  set  of  men,  though 
just  from  Scotland,  could  have  done  more.  Had  they  been  as  in- 
different on  this  subject  as  the  church  has  been  for  the  last  forty 
or  fifty  years,  they  would  have  let  it  alone,  and  allowed  the  several 
congregations  to  take  their  own  course  in  relation  to  it.  It  is,  there- 
fore, very  evident,  that  the  original  Presbytery  was  far  more  strict 
in  regard  to  this  point  than  the  church  has  been,  at  least  since 
1801. 

There  is  one  record  on  the  minutes  which  presents  the  opinions 
of  the  early  members  of  our  church,  on  this  subject,  in  so  clear  a 
light  that  it  must  not  be  passed  over.  In  1722,  Mr.  Dickinson  and 
some  others  introduced  four  articles  into  Synod,  explanatory  of 
their  principles  of  church  government.  The  first  of  these  declares, 
"  that  the  power  of  the  keys  is  committed  to  church  officers  and  to 
them  only."  By  the  power  of  the  keys  is,  of  course,  meant  the  power 
of  discipline  ;  the  right  to  open  or  shut  the  door  of  the  church.  This 
right,  according  to  Congregationalism,  belongs  to  the  brotherhood ; 
according  to  Presbyterianism,  to  church  officers,  and  to  them  only. 
This  article,  then,  contains  an  explicit  condemnation  of  the  Con- 
gregational method  of  conducting  the  discipline  of  the  church,  and 
of  consequence  of  those  churches  (connected  with  the  Synod)  that 
acted  upon  that  plan.  Yet  these  articles  came  from  what  may  be 
called  the  New  England  side  of  the  house.  They  were  introduced 
in  opposition  to  a  measure  proposed  by  one  of  the  Scotch  members, 

continuance  in  those  offices,  presume  on  the  liberty  of  the  church." — Spots- 
wood's  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  167. 


98  PRESBYTERIAN    CHCKCH 

and  were  unanimously  adopted.  There  was,  therefore,  as  to  this 
point,  no  diversity  of  opinion.  Whatever  irregularity  in  practice 
might,  in  some  cases,  exist,  it  was  never  sanctioned,  but  condemned 
by  all  parties  and  on  all  suitable  occasions. 

The  next  subject  of  investigation  is  the  organization  and  power 
of  the  original  Presbytery.  A  Presbytery,  according  to  our  present 
constitution,  is  a  convention  of  bishops  and  elders  within  a  certain 
district.  It  has  "  power  to  receive  and  issue  appeals  from  church 
sessions,  and  references  brought  before  them  in  an  orderly  manner ; 
to  examine  and  license  candidates  for  the  holy  ministry ;  to  ordain, 
install,  remove,  and  judge  ministers ;  to  examine,  and  approve  or 
censure  the  records  of  church  sessions ;  to  resolve  questions  of 
doctrine  and  discipline  seriously  and  reasonably  proposed  ;  to  con- 
demn erroneous  opinions  which  injure  the  peace  or  purity  of  the 
church  ;  to  visit  particular  churches  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  into 
their  state  and  redressing  the  evils  that  may  have  arisen  in  them  ; 
to  unite  or  divide  congregations  at  the  request  of  the  people,  or  to 
form  or  to  receive  new  congregations,  and,  in  general,  to  order  what- 
ever pertains  to  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  churches  under  their 
care."  That  the  first  Presbytery  was  a  convention  of  ministers  and 
elders,  has  already  been  satisfactorily  shown.  And  it  is  really  re- 
markable, considering  the  circumstances,  how  large  and  regular  an 
attendance  of  elders  was  obtained.  In  1707,  there  were  four  min- 
isters and  four  elders  present;  in  1708,  six  ministers  and  three 
elders ;  in  1709,  seven  ministers  and  five  elders ;  in  1710,  at  first 
four  ministers  and  four  elders,  afterwards  seven  of  each  class.  Thus 
it  continued  until  the  formation  of  the  Synod,  when  the  proportion 
of  elders  in  attendance  is  generally  less. 

That  this  Presbytery  exercised  all  the  powers  above  specified  in 
their  fullest  latitude,  is  evident  from  every  page  of  their  records. 
With  regard  to  the  powers  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  much  confusion 
and  misapprehension  have  arisen  by  pressing  too  far  the  analogy  be- 
tween them  and  those  of  similar  names  in  civil  society.  Our  judica- 
tories are  neither  courts  nor  legislatures,  properly  speaking.  They 
are  the  governing  bodies  in  the  church,  and  are  invested  with  the 
general  authority  to  administer  its  affairs.     This  authority  no  more 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  99 

admits  of  being  reduced  to  distinct  categories,  than  that  of  a  parent. 
It  is  that  of  general  direction  and  control ;  limited,  as  in  the  case 
of  a  parent,  by  the  nature  of  the  relation,  by  the  word  of  God,  and 
by  mutual  stipulations. 

It  is  precisely  such  a  general  authority,  as  above  stated,  that  we 
find  the  first  Presbytery  exercising  over  the  churches  under  its  care. 
No  congregation  could  either  settle  or  dismiss  a  pastor  without,  its 
permission.  All  calls  then,  as  now,  were  presented  to  the  Presby- 
tery, and  if  approved,  were  handed  to  the  persons  for  whom  they  were 
designed.  Thus,  in  1710,  the  call  from  Monokin  for  Mr.  McNish 
was  presented  to  him  by  the  Presbytery.  In  the  same  year,  Mr. 
Wade,  having  resigned  his  charge,  it  is  said,  "  the  Presbytery  do 
henceforth  allow  the  good  people  of  Woodbridge  to  supply  them- 
selves with  another  pastor."  In  1712,  a  call  was  presented  from 
one  of  the  Maryland  churches  for  the  Rev.  Thomas  Bratten,  and 
forwarded  to  him  ;  and  he  having  died  before  his  settlement,  another 
was  presented  the  following  year  from  the  same  church  to  the  Rev. 
Robert  Lawson.  Similar  records  occur  in  the  minutes  of  almost  every 
year.  In  1715,  we  find  the  following  :  "  Mr.  Philip  Ringo  having 
presented  a  call  from  the  people  of  Maidenhead  and  Hopewell,  in 
West  Jersey,  unto  Mr.  Robert  Orr,  the  Presbytery  called  for,  con- 
sidered of,  and  approved  the  said  Mr.  Orr  his  [Mr.  Orr's]  creden- 
tials as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  and  likewise  considered  of  and 
approved  the  call,  which  being  presented  by  the  moderator  unto  the 
said  Mr.  Orr,  he  accepted  of  it."  On  the  same  page  there  is  a 
record  of  precisely  the  same  character,  respecting  a  call  from  Balti- 
more county,  for  Mr.  Hugh  Conn.  In  the  minutes  for  1716,  it  is 
stated  :  "A  call  from  the  people  of  South  Hampton,  on  Long  Island, 
to  Mr.  Gelston,  wherein  the  said  people  do  subject  themselves  to  us  in 
the  Lord,  as  a  Presbytery,  being  presented  to  us  in  the  name  of  their 
representatives,  we  did  tender  it  to  the  said  Mr.  Gelston,  and  he 
accepted  it." 

In  like  manner  we  find  the  Presbytery  dismissing  pastors,  with 
or  without  their  consent.  Mr.  Wade's  case  is  an  example  of  the 
latter  kind.  He  resigned  his  charge  in  Woodbridge  in  1711,  but 
immediately  retracted  his  resignation,  and  insisted  upon  continuing 


100  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

to  act  as  the  pastor  of  the  church.  Whereupon,  in  1712,  the  Pres- 
bytery, after  a  recital  of  the  grounds  of  their  dissatisfaction  with 
him,  say,  "  We,  therefore,  in  the  fear  and  in  the  name  of  our  great 
Master,  do  appoint  and  ordain  that  the  said  Mr.  Wade  do  no  longer 
exercise  his  ministerial  office  in  the  town  of  Woodbridge,  or  among 
the  people  thereof,  unless  allowed  by  the  Presbytery  hereafter,  but 
that  he  forthwith,  and  without  resistance  directly  or  indirectly,  give 
place  to  some  other,  whom  God  in  his  providence  may  send,  and  the 
good  people  of  Woodbridge,  or  the  major  part  of  them,  call  and 
agree  about."  An  example  of  an  opposite  kind  occurred  in  1718, 
when  the  Synod  acting  in  a  Presbyterial  capacity,  say  :  "  Rev.  John 
Hampton  having  petitioned  for  a  dismission  from  his  pastoral  rela- 
tion to  the  people  of  Snowhill,  they  considering  that  the  said  Mr. 
Hampton  was  not  able  to  perform  the  office  of  a  pastor  to  that 
people,  without  manifest  hazard  to  his  life,  through  bodily  indis- 
position, the  Synod  upon  mature  deliberation  having  put  the  matter 
to  vote,  it  was  carried  nemine  contradicente  to  accept  of  his  resig- 
nation, and  to  declare  his  congregation  vacant ;  to  the  great  regret 
of  Synod."  In  1726,  in  consequence  of  a  reference  from  the 
Presbytery  of  Long  Island,  the  Synod  determined  inter  alia, 
"  That  Mr.  Anderson,  according  to  his  desire,  be  left  at  liberty  to 
remove  from  New  York,  and  to  accept  of  a  call  from  any  other 
people,  as  Providence  may  determine,  and  that  the  people  of  New 
York  be  at  liberty  to  call  another  minister,  in  an  orderly  way.  as 
Boon  as  they  shall  pay  up  what  arrears  appear  justly  due  to  Mr. 
Anderson."  In  the  following  year,  Mr.  Pemberton  having  been 
called  without  the  intervention  of  the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island, 
the  Synod  made  the  following  minute :  "  As  to  the  call  and  settle- 
ment of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pemberton  at  New  York,  the  Synod  do  de- 
termine that  the  rules  of  our  Presbyterian  constitution  were  not 
observed,  in  several  respects,  by  the  congregation  in  that  matter. 
This  also  passed  nemine  contradicente.  And  it  was  put  to  vote, 
receive  or  delay  the  receiving  of  Mr.  Pemberton  as  a  member  of 
this  Synod,  and  it  was  carried  for  delaying,  which  delay  did  not 
flow  from  disrespect  to  Mr.  Pemberton  or  any  fault  or  objection  to 
him,  but  from  other  reasons."    These  examples,  which  are  only  a  few 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  101 

of  those  which  might  be  selected  from  the  minutes  for  the  period 
under  consideration,  illustrate  the  kind  of  authority  exercised  by 
the  Presbytery  in  relation  to  the  calling  and  settling  of  ministers. 
Similar  instances  might  be  adduced  of  every  other  power  ever 
exercised  at  the  present  day  by  a  Presbytery  over  a  congregation ; 
as  that  of  erecting  new  churches  ;  dividing  congregations  ;  appoint- 
ing supplies.  &c.  &c.  These,  however,  are  so  familiar  as  to  render 
any  thing  more  than  this  general  reference  unnecessary.  It  will 
be  more  interesting  to  notice  a  few  examples  of  a  somewhat  different 
character.  As  early  as  1708,  the  people  of  New  Castle  petitioned 
"  that  the  people  of  White  Clay  Creek  be  not  suffered  to  set  up  a 
new  meeting-house."  These  early  Presbyterians  must  have  had 
high  ideas  of  the  authority  of  Presbytery,  or  they  never  would  have 
presented  such  a  request.  In  consequence  of  this  petition  it  was 
"  ordered  that  the  people  of  New  Castle,  and  of  the  country,  should 
not  be  divided  by  setting  up  two  separate  meetings."  This  appears 
to  have  been  not  merely  a  refusal  to  divide  an  ecclesiastical  body, 
but  to  allow  the  same  church  to  have  two  places  of  worship.  A 
similar  case  occurred  at  a  somewhat  later  period.  The  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle  had  refused  to  sanction  a  portion  of  Mr.  Houston's 
congregation  on  Elk  river  having  a  new  meeting-house.  An  appeal 
was  taken  from  this  decision  to  the  Synod,  which  in  1726,  unani- 
mously approved  of  the  conduct  of  the  Presbytery.  In  the  mean- 
time the  meeting-house  was  built,  and  the  matter  coming  up  the 
following  year,  the  Synod,  "  desirous  of  taking  healing  as  well  as 
just  measures  in  determining  that  affair,"  judged,  "First,  that  that 
party  be  allowed  to  have  a  new  meeting-house  in  some  part  of  their 
side  of  the  congregation,  yet  still  remain  a  part  of  the  congrega- 
tion, until  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  have  more  encouragement  for 
a  new  erection.  Secondly,  that  in  order  to  this  the  new  meeting- 
house be  removed  to  any  place  above  six  miles  distant  in  a  direct 
line  from  the  old  meeting-house,  which  said  supplicants  shall  agree 
upon,  and  that  it  shall  be  seven  miles  from  any  other,"  &c.  At  a 
subsequent  meeting,  the  Synod  agreed  to  abate  one  half  mile  of 
the  specified  distance.  It  is  not  often  that  we  see  ecclesiastical 
bodies  quite  so  authoritative,  in  such  matters,  at  the  present  day. 


102  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

Again  it  was  very  common  for  the  Presbytery  to  see  that  the  con- 
gregations paid  their  pastors'  salaries.  Thus  in  1708,  it  was 
ordered  that  a  letter  be  written  to  Snowhill,  "  requiring  their  faith- 
fulness and  care"  in  collecting  Mr.  Hampton's  salary.  A  similar 
order  was  made  the  next  year  in  relation  to  Mr.  McNish.  In  like 
manner,  as  mentioned  above,  the  New  York  congregation  were 
allowed  to  call  another  minister,  when  they  had  paid  what  was  due 
to  Mr.  Anderson.  And,  in  1733,  (though  this  is  rather  beyond 
our  present  limits,)  when  the  church  in  Philadelphia  wished  to  call 
an  assistant  minister,  they  were  not  allowed  to  do  it,  until  they  had 
pledged  themselves  not  to  diminish  Mr.  Andrews's  salary  on  that 
account. 

Another  prerogative  of  a  Presbytery  is  the  right  to  review  and 
correct  the  proceedings  of  church  sessions.  That  the  original 
Presbytery  exercised  this  power  has  been  already  shown,  from  the 
order  made  in  1714,  and  twice  repeated,  that  the  sessional  records 
should  be  regularly  produced  for  examination.  The  authority  to 
sit  in  judgment  on  the  decisions  of  the  lower  courts,  is  involved  in 
this  general  right  of  review.  To  the  original  Presbytery,  there- 
fore, appeals  were  regularly  made  from  church  sessions.  Thus  in 
1711,  a  censure  inflicted  upon  two  members  of  Mr.  Wade's  church 
was  reversed  by  the  Presbytery,  and  the  precise  form  of  words 
prescribed,  in  which  their  decision  was  to  be  announced.  There 
are,  happily,  but  few  cases  of  appeal  upon  record  before  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Synod.  When  the  church  was  enlarged  they  became 
more  numerous.  Though  these  cases,  in  one  aspect,  belong  to  the 
exhibition  of  the  relation  in  which  the  Synod  stood  to  the  Presby- 
teries, yet  as  they  serve,  at  the  same  time,  to  illustrate  the  nature 
of  the  control  exercised  by  the  Presbyteries  over  the  congrega- 
tions, they  may  be  properly  referred  to  in  this  place.  In  1717, 
Mr.  Wotherspoon  presented  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  the 
case  of  one  of  his  members  who  had  married  the  widow  of  his  bro- 
ther. "  The  Presbytery  considering  some  circumstances  in  regard 
of  different  sentiments,  between  us  and  the  Dutch  ministers  in  this 
affair,  thinks  fit,"  as  it  is  recorded,  "to  defer  further  consideration 
upon  it  till  our  next  meeting ;  against  which  time  we  may  have 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  103 

occasion  to  hear  more  from  the  Dutch  ministers  about  this  case."  * 
At  the  next  meeting,  it  is  said,  that  as  the  Dutch  ministers  were 
expected  to  be  at  Synod,  which  was  to  meet  the  following  week  in 
Philadelphia,  the  whole  matter  was  referred  to  that  body.  The 
Synod  decided,  nem.  con.  that  the  marriage  was  unlawful,  and  that 
as  long  as  the  parties  lived  together,  "  they  be  debarred  from  all 
sealing  ordinances,  and  that  Mr.  Wotherspoon  make  intimation 
hereof  to  his  congregation  in  what  time  and  manner  he  shall  think 
convenient."  The  following  year  it  was  reported,  "that  Mr. 
Wotherspoon  had,  in  due  time,  observed  the  order  of  the  Synod 
concerning"  this  affair.  In  1728,  six  persons  who  had  been  ex- 
communicated by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones,  appealed  to  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  who  referred  the  matter  to  Synod.  That  body 
decided  that  as  the  appellants  confessed  they  had  done  WTong  in 
breaking  away  from  the  communion  of  Mr.  Jones's  church,  they 
should,  on  a  public  acknowledgment  of  their  error,  "  be  absolved 
from  the  aforesaid  censure,  and  so  be  free  to  join  with  what  con- 
gregation they  please." 

These  few  examples  are  sufficient  to  show  the  regular  operation 
of  the  system  of  appeals,  and  the  supervision  of  the  higher  judi- 
catories over  the  acts  of  church  sessions,  which  is  one  of  the  lead- 
ing features  of  Presbyterianism.  Another  illustration  of  the  na- 
ture of  this  general  supervision  over  congregations  may  be  found 
in  the  standing  rule  adopted  in  1710,  when  it  was  "  ordered  that 
the  ministers  and  elders  of  this  meeting  come  prepared  for  the 
future,  to  give  a  true  and  impartial  account  how  matters  are  mu- 
tually betwixt  them,  both  with  regard  to  spirituals  and  temporals." 
It  was  accordingly  the  custom,  after  this,  to  call  first  upon  the 
ministers  to  give  an  account  of  the  state  of  their  congregations ; 
and  then  upon  the  elders  to  say  how  their  ministers  were  supported, 
and  how  they  discharged  their  duties.     Thus,  in  1711,  we  find  the 

*  Presbytery  Book  of  New  Castle,  p.  2. — The  individual  concerned  in  this 
case  was,  as  is  evident  from  his  name,  of  Dutch  origin,  and  hence  the  defer- 
ence paid  to  the  opinion  of  the  Dutch  ministers.  This  record  is  interesting, 
as  it  seems  to  prove  the  existence  of  Dutch  churches,  at  this  early  period,  in 
what  is  now  the  State  of  Delaware. 


J  04  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

following  record  :  "  Inquiry  was  made  of  the  several  ministers, 
touching  the  state  of  their  congregations  and  of  themselves  in  re- 
lation thereto ;  and  also  of  the  several  elders,  not  only  of  the  mea- 
sures taken  to  support  the  ministers,  but  of  the  life,  conversation, 
and  doctrine  of  their  several  pastors,  and  report  was  given  to  our 
satisfaction  for  this  time."  This  custom  was  long  continued  as 
appears  from  the  records. 

As  this  is  an  illustration,  not  only  of  the  superintendence  exer- 
cised by  the  Presbytery  over  the  churches,  but  also  of  the  "  watch 
and  care"  which  they  extended  over  the  ministers,  it  naturally  in- 
troduces the  consideration  of  the  authority  of  that  body  over  its 
own  members.  That  it  exercised  the  right  of  examining,  licensing, 
ordaining,  suspending,  and  deposing  ministers,  is  what  might  be 
expected  from  its  name,  as  these  are  ordinary  and  acknowledged 
Presbyterial  functions.  The  examples  of  the  exercise  of  this 
power  are  so  numerous  that  they  need  not  be  adduced.  It  will  be 
more  instructive  to  refer  to  some  illustrations  of  a  more  general 
character.  When  a  new  member  joined  the  Presbytery,  it  was 
customary  to  make  him  promise  subjection  to  them  in  the  Lord. 
This  much  at  least  was  included  in  Mr.  Wade's  voluntary  submis- 
sion to  "  our  constitution,"  as  the  Presbytery  expressed  themselves, 
because  it  was  disobedience  to  a  decision  of  the  Presbytery  in  con- 
tinuing to  preach  in  Woodbridge  after  his  resignation,  that  led  to 
their  censure  upon  him.  In  like  manner,  when  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Pumry  was  received  in  1715,  it  is  stated  that  "  he  was  heartily 
and  unanimously  accepted,  he  promising  subjection  to  the  Presby- 
tery in  the  Lord."  The  same  formula  is  used  upon  other  similar 
occasions.  When  the  Rev.  Mr.  Powell  was  received  in  1713,  the 
Presbytery  being  satisfied  as  to  his  ordination,  &c,  admitted  him 
ass  a  member,  but  advised  him  to  obtain  from  England  more  ample 
testimonials  within  a  year,  and  "  that  till  then  it  shall  be  free  to 
him  to  exercise  his  ministry  in  all  its  parts,  where  Providence  shall 
call  him,  but  not  fully  to  settle  until  the  expiration  of  the  said 
time."  In  the  following  year  the  Presbytery  resolved,  "that  hav- 
ing considered  that  their  brother  Mr.  Powell  had  used  diligence  to 
procure  further  credentials,  according  to  last  year's  minutes,  but 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  105 

not  having  received  answers  from  England,  and  we  being  further 
satisfied  by  such  long  trial  and  personal  acquaintance,  together 
with  other  considerable  circumstances,  and  now  a  unanimous  call 
boing  presented  to  us  for  him  from  the  people  of  Cohanzy,  the 
Presbytery,  after  mature  deliberation,  did  sustain  the  call,  but 
withal  did  recommend  him,  as  formerly,  that  he  should  procure  let- 
ters from  England."  Such  cases  illustrate,  both  the  watchfulness 
of  the  Presbytery,  and  the  authority  which  they  exercised  over 
their  own  members.  Mr.  Powell  was  admitted  a  member,  but  was 
forbidden  to  settle  for  a  year ;  and  at  the  expiration  of  that  period 
it  was  a  matter  of  deliberation  whether  he  should  be  allowed  to 
accept  a  call  or  not. 

It  appears  then,  that  there  is  no  one  of  the  functions  of  a  Pres- 
bytery, as  now  understood,  which  the  original  Presbytery  of  our 
church  did  not  exercise  from  the  beginning.  It  claimed  the  same 
supervision  and  control  over  churches ;  the  same  authority  over  its 
own  members ;  and  was  in  all  respects  as  thoroughly  Presbyterian 
in  its  powers  as  any  similar  body  at  the  present  day.  It  may  be 
asked,  however,  whether  there  were  not  some  modes  of  action 
adopted  by  that  body,  more  allied  to  Congregationalism  than  any 
thing  which  now  occurs.  So  it  has  been  said.  Proof  of  this  point 
has  been  sought  in  the  fact,  that  the  Presbytery  performed  so 
much  of  its  appropriate  business  by  committees.  It  was  very  com- 
mon, for  example,  for  the  Presbytery  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
examine  a  candidate  for  the  ministry,  and  if  satisfied  with  his 
qualifications,  to  license,  ordain,  or  install  him.  Mr.  Gillespie  was 
thus  ordained  by  a  committee  in  1712 ;  Mr.  Wotherspoon  in 
1713;  Mr.  Bradner  in  1714;  Mr.  Thompson  in  1716.  Indeed 
this  was  the  method  commonly  pursued.*  Should  it  even  be  ad- 
mitted that  there  was  a  departure  in  this  mode  of  procedure,  from 
strict  Presbyterianism,  a  sufficient  explanation  might  be  found  in 
the  circumstances  of  the  church,  without  assuming  any  tendency 
to  Congregationalism  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery.     It  is  to  be 

*  Dr.  Hill,  after  referring  to  some  of  these  cases,  asks,  "  Does  this  resemble 
a  Presbytery,  or  a  Congregational  council  matter  1" —  Sketches,  No  8. 


106  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

remembered  that  the  members  of  that  body  were  scattered  over 
the  country  at  distant  intervals,  from  the  mouth  of  the  Chesapeake 
to  Long  Island  Sound.  There  were  thfcn  no  such  facilities  for 
travelling  as  those  which  we  have  long  enjoyed.  On  this  account 
the  Presbytery  met  but  once  a  year.  As  it  was  deemed  important 
that  the  candidate  should  be  ordained  in  the  presence  of  the 
congregation  which  he  was  called  to  serve,  such  ordinations  could 
seldom  be  performed  at  the  stated  meetings  of  Presbytery.  Is  it 
a  matter  of  surprise  then,  that  instead  of  requiring  all  their  scat- 
tered members  to  be  present,  at  a  great  expense  of  time  and  money, 
they  should  devolve  this  duty  upon  three  or  four  of  the  neighbour- 
ing ministers,  and  authorize  them  to  act  in  their  name  ?  Do  we 
not  constantly  install  by  committee  ?  And  is  not  installation  as 
much  a  Presbyterial  act  as  ordination  ?  The  founders  of  our 
Church  must  have  been  formalists  indeed,  had  they  not  acted  as 
they  did. 

There  is,  however,  no  need  of  any  apology  in  the  case.  The 
course  in  question  is  not  only  consistent  with  the  strictest  Presby- 
terianism,  but  arose  out  of  its  strictness.  The  idea  of  inherent,  in 
opposition  to  delegated  power  in  the  Presbytery,  is  involved  in  this 
assumption  of  the  right  to  delegate  its  authority  to  a  committee  of 
its  own  appointment.  So  far  from  such  a  committee  resembling  a 
Congregational  council,  it  is  the  opposite  extreme.  There  is  some 
analogy  between  such  a  council  and  a  Presbytery,  considered  as  a 
convention  of  ministers  and  elders,  who  are  representatives  of  the 
churches ;  but  none  at  all  between  a  council  and  a  committee  ap- 
pointed, not  by  the  churches  but  by  Presbytery,  and  by  them 
clothed  with  authority  to  exercise  one  of  its  most  important  func- 
tions. It  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  this  idea  that  the  Synod 
were  accustomed  to  appoint  a  commission  invested  with  all  Synod- 
ical  powers,  and  to  nominate  committees  to  visit  particular  places 
and  decide  cases  of  discipline,  or  to  adjust  difficulties  with  the  full 
authority  of  the  appointing  body.  It  was  on  the  same  principle 
also  that  the  Synod  would  name  some  half  dozen  of  its  members, 
and  bid  them  retire,  and  examine  and  ordain  a  candidate ;  or  that 
in  matters  of  difficulty,  they  would  direct  two  or  three  experienced 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  107 

ministers  to  meet  with  a  particular  Presbytery  as  members,  and 
assist  in  adjudicating  a  given  case.  All  these  modes  of  proceeding 
were  borrowed  from  Scotland,  and  they  all  continued  in  our  church 
as  long  as  its  original  character  lasted.  It  is  rather  singular  that 
the  very  circumstance  should  be  fixed  upon,  to  prove  the  Congre- 
gationalism of  the  early  members  of  our  church,  which  most  dis- 
tinctly proves  the  reverse.  It  was  certainly  not  Congregationalism 
■which  induced  the  General  Assembly  in  Scotland  to  appoint  com- 
mittees, with  full  powers  to  visit  different  parts  of  the  kingdom, 
"  to  plant  kirks  with  qualified  ministers,  and  to  depose  and  deprive 
such  as  be  unqualified  either  in  life  or  doctrine;"*  or  to  designate 
the  Presbytery  of  Edinburgh  with  eight  other  ministers,  to  sum- 
mon certain  Earls,  Lords,  Barons,  and  freeholders,  and  institute 
process  against  them  ;f  or  to  give  a  commission  "  to  certain  bre- 
thren to  visit  and  try  the  doctrine,  life,  conversation,  diligence,  and 
fidelity  of  the  pastors  within  the  said  (i.  e.  all)  Presbyteries."  | 
Things  analogous  to  these  we  find  in  the  early  history  of  our 
church,  and  they  savour  of  any  thing  rather  than  of  Congre- 
gationalism. This  acting  then,  by  committees  clothed  with  plenary 
powers,  should  never  be  referred  to  in  proof  of  the  lax  Presbyte- 
rianisin  of  the  founders  of  our  Church. 

What  renders  this  reference  in  the  present  case  the  more  sur- 
prising is,  that  in  ordaining  by  committee,  the  Presbytery  acted  in 
obedience  to  the  very  letter  of  the  Westminster  Directory.  It  is 
therein  ordered  that,  "upon  the  day  appointed  for  the  ordination, 
which  is  to  be  performed  in  the  church  where  he  that  is  to  be  or- 
dained is  to  serve,  a  solemn  fast  shall  be  kept  by  the  congregation, 
that  they  may  more  earnestly  join  in  prayer  for  a  blessing  upon 
the  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  the  labours  of  his  servant  for  their 
good.  The  Presbytery  shall  come  to  the  place,  or  at  least  three 
or  four  ministers  of  the  word  shall  be  sent  thither  from  the  Pres- 
bytery, of  which  one  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  shall  preach  to 
the  people  concerning  the  office  and  duties  of  the  ministers  of 
Christ,  and  how  the  people  ought  to  receive  them  for  their  work's 

*  Calderwood,  p.  220.  f  Ibid.  p.  258.  %  Ibid.  p.  286. 


108  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

sake."  In  this  point,  therefore,  the  original  Presbytery  must  stand 
acquitted  of  any  want  of  fidelity  to  their  own  system. 

There  is,  however,  one  ease,  and  as  far  as  is  known,  one  only, 
which  is  not  accounted  for  by  what  has  now  been  said.  The  peo- 
ple of  Cape  May  were  without  a  pastor.  Mr.  Bradner,  a  candi- 
date for  the  ministiy,  was  willing  to  serve  them,  but  had  no  au- 
thority to  preach.  In  this  emergency,  three  of  the  nearest  minis- 
ters, Messrs.  Davis,  Hampton,  and  Henry,  on  their  own  responsi- 
bility examined  and  licensed  him.  This  was  in  March  ;  and  in 
September  the  matter  was  reported  to  Presbytery  and  received 
their  sanction.  That  is,  as  a  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  the  Presby- 
tery was  out  of  the  question,  these  gentlemen  thought  it  better 
that  they  should  act  informally,  than  that  a  people  should  be  de- 
prived of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  for  six  months.  The  Pres- 
bytery said  they  did  right ;  John  Knox  or  Andrew  Melville  would 
have  said  the  same.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  this  case  can  prove, 
beyond  what  every  one  must  be  ready  to  admit,  that  though  con- 
sistent Presbyterians,  the  founders  of  our  church  were  not  bigots 
for  matters  of  form.  Nothing  can  more  clearly  show  the  charac- 
ter of  the  members  of  the  first  Presbytery,  than  the  fact  that  the 
above  mentioned  case  is  the  only  one,  as  it  is  believed,  which  can 
be  produced  from  their  minutes,  of  departure  from  even  the  forms 
of  Presbyterianism. 

The  preceding  review  will  serve  to  exhibit  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness, the  nature  of  the  ecclesiastical  system  introduced  by  the  first 
ministers  of  our  church.  It  was  Presbyterianism  ;  for  there  is  no 
function  of  a  Presbytery  which  they  did  not  claim  and  exercise  as 
fully  as  is  done  by  any  similar  body  at  the  present  day.  There  is 
no  evidence  of  indifference  with  regard  either  to  doctrine  or  order, 
and  no  relaxation  of  discipline  for  moral  offences.  The  minutes 
abound  with  evidence  of  the  diligence,  punctuality,  and  zeal  of  the 
members ;  and  of  their  earnest  desire  to  promote  the  spiritual  wel- 
fare of  the  people  and  their  own  improvement. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  in  1716,  three  Presbyteries  were 
constituted,  who  agreed  to  meet  annually  as  a  Synod.  It  is  there- 
fore necessary,  in  order  to  understand  the  character  of  American 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  109 

Presbyterianism,  to  ascertain  the  relation  which  this  Synod  sus- 
tained to  the  Presbyteries  and  to  the  churches  under  their  care. 
In  order  to  illustrate  this  subject,  it  must  be  stated  that  the  first 
Synod  not  only  exercised  all  the  powers  which,  at  the  present  day, 
are  claimed  by  such  bodies,  but  several  others  which  our  present 
Synods  are  not  in  the  habit  of  assuming.  To  the  former  class 
belongs,  first,  the  general  power  of  review  and  control  of  Presby- 
teries. This,  as  far  as  the  review  of  records  is  concerned,  was 
provided  for  at  the  time  the  Synod  was  constituted.  It  was  then 
"  ordered  that  a  book  be  kept  by  each  Presbytery  containing  a  re- 
cord of  their  proceedings,  and  that  it  be  brought  every  year  to  our 
anniversary  Synod  to  be  revised."  Accordingly,  it  is  regularly 
noticed  what  Presbyterial  books  were  presented  at  each  meeting, 
and  who  were  appointed  to  examine  them.  Thus  in  1719,  it  is 
stated,  "  that  the  Presbytery  book  of  New  Castle  was  revised  and 
approved  by  the  Synod  unto  the  end  of  sessio  septima  in  page  19, 
as  is  to  be  seen  in  the  margin  of  the  said  book,  in  the  above  said 
page.  Ordered,  that  the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island  get  a  new, 
well-ordered  book  against  the  next  Synod,  and  that  they  leave 
marginal  room  for  Synodical  corrections."  Secondly,  to  the  class 
of  ordinary  powers  belongs  also  that  of  receiving  and  deciding 
appeals  and  references  from  the  lower  judicatories.  Examples  of 
the  exercise  of  this  power  have  already  been  given ;  as  the  refer- 
ence by  the  New  Castle  Presbytery,  of  the  case  of  the  church 
member  who  had  married  his  brother's  widow ;  and  of  the  appeal 
of  the  members  of  Mr.  Jones's  congregation,  who  had  been  excom- 
municated. In  1722,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  rebuked,  sus- 
pended, and  deposed  the  Rev.  Mr.  Laing,  "  for  violating  the  Lord's 
day  by  washing  himself  in  a  creek  ;  and  for  his  indiscreet  carriage 
before  the  Presbytery  at  the  time  of  his  rebuke."  When  the 
matter  was  brought  before  the  Synod  in  1723,  that  body  decided 
that,  "  they  do  judge  those  censures  of  suspension  and  deposition 
were  too  severe,  and  do  therefore  reverse  them."  The  rebuke, 
they  decided,  was  merited.  In  1720,  an  appeal  by  certain  mem- 
bers of  Mr.  Houston's  congregation  from  a  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Castle  was  tried,  and  the  Presbytery  unanimously 


110  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

sustained.  There  is  one  order  of  the  Synod  connected  with  this 
appeal,  which,  whether  it  is  to  be  referred  to  the  head  of  ordinary, 
or  extraordinary  powers,  the  reader  must  judge.  The  matter  in 
dispute,  as  stated  upon  a  preceding  page,  was  the  erection  of  a  new 
meeting-house  by  a  portion  of  Mr.  Houston's  congregation.  The 
Synod  at  last  decided  that  they  might  have  a  new  house,  provided 
they  removed  it  to  a  distance  of  six  miles  from  the  old  one.  This, 
it  appears,  they  neglected  to  do.  Whereupon  the  Synod  "  ordered, 
that  no  minister  preach  in  the  said  new  meeting-house  while  in  that 
place,  where  it  now  is."*  That  this  order  was  not  a  dead  letter, 
appears  from  the  following  minute  in  the  records  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Castle :  "  The  Presbytery  having  inquired  into  Mr. 
Gelston's  conduct,  with  respect  to  his  violation  of  the  Synod's  act 
relating  to  the  new  erection  at  New  London,  by  his  preaching  with- 
in "the  forbidden  bounds  of  the  said  act,  and  in  the  prohibited 
house ;  the  Presbytery  having  heard  and  considered  his  reasons,  do 
judge  them  invalid ;  and  that  Mr.  Gelston's  conduct  in  that  affair 
is  highly  offensive  and  irregular.  Mr.  Gelston  being  called  in,  and 
interrogated  with  respect  to  his  resolution  of  receding  from  the 
said  practice,  he  acknowledged  his  transgression,  and  promised 
absolutely  not  to  preach  in  the  said  house,  nor  elsewhere  within  the 
prohibited  bounds,  till  either  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  opened  the 
door  for  him."f  This,  it  might  be  supposed,  is  Presbyterianism 
sufficiently  rigid  to  satisfy  the  most  sceptical  as  to  the  character 
both  of  the  Synod  and  Presbytery. 

To  the  class  of  ordinary  powers  belongs  also  the  right  "  to  take 
effectual  care  that  the  Presbyteries  observe  the  constitution  of  the 
church."  This  is  illustrated  by  such  cases  as  the  following.  It 
seems  that  some  doubt  had  arisen  whether  the  Presbytery  of  Long 
island  had  proceeded  regularly  in  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Anderson 
m  New  York.  When  the  matter  came  before  Synod,  the  following 
record  was  made :  "  After  a  full  hearing  and  long  reasoning  upon 
the  case  represented  by  Messrs.  Livingston  and  Smith,  touching 
Mr.  Anderson's  settlement  in  New  York,  the  question  was  put, 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  3. 

f  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  vol.  i.  p.  143. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  Ill 

whether  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island,  in  the 
settlement  of  Mr.  Anderson  at  New  York,  were  regular ;  and  it 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative  by  a  great  majority."*  On  the 
other  hand,  as  stated  above,  when  the  question  came  up  respecting 
the  settlement  of  Mr.  Pemberton,  it  was  decided  that,  "  the  rules 
of  our  Presbyterian  constitution"  had  not  been  observed  in  his 
case,  and  the  Synod  decline  to  recognize  him  as  a  member. 

Finally,  the  Synod  exercised  a  general  supervision  over  the 
churches,  warning  them  of  improper  or  irregular  preachers,  receiv- 
ing and  answering  their  petitions  or  complaints.  Especially  did  it 
concern  itself  for  the  supply  of  destitute  places,  which  was  one  of 
the  principal  items  of  its  business.  To  select  but  two  cases  out  of 
a  multitude :  in  1719,  a  letter  was  received  "  from  the  people  of 
Potomac  in  Virginia,  requesting  the  Synod's  care  and  diligence  in 
providing  them  an  able  gospel  minister."  The  Synod  accordingly 
directed  the  Rev.  Mr.  Magill  to  visit  them  ;  who  reported  the  next 
year  that  he  went  to  Virginia,  and  after  some  months'  continuance, 
"put  the  people  into  church  order."  This  must  have  been  one  of 
the  earliest  Presbyterian  organisations  in  that  part  of  the  State. 
In  1723,  a  representation  having  been  made  of  the  earnest  desire 
of  some  Protestant  dissenting  families  in  Virginia  for  preaching, 
the  Synod  appointed  "  that  Messrs.  Conn,  Orme,  and  Steward  do 
each  of  them  severally  visit  said  people,  and  preach  four  Lord's 
days  before  next  Synod  to  that  people ;  and  it  is  recommended  to 
Mr.  Jonathan  Dickinson,  to  preach  to  the  said  people  some  Sab 
bath-days  before  next  Synod ;  and  in  case  he  goes  thither,  that 
then  Mr.  Pierson,  Mr.  Webb,  and  Mr.  Moses  Dickinson,  do  supply 
his  congregation  with  preaching.  .  .  .  And  it  is  further  ordered, 
that  Mr.  Hucheson  supply  Mr.  Steward's  congregation  during  his 
absence  in  Virginia."  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  the  Synod 
exercised  constantly  the  general  authority  over  its  members  of 
sending  them  to  supply  particular  congregations  or  destitute  places, 
and  that  an  account  was  always  demanded  how  the  duty  had  been 
performed  ;  and  neglect  was  uniformly  censured. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  original  Synod  of  our  church  exercised 

*  Minutes,  p.  53. 


112  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

the  power  of  review  and  control  over  Presbyteries  and  congrega- 
tions, of  receiving  and  deciding  appeals,  references  and  complaints, 
and  of  general  supervision  and  direction.  It  exhibits  as  perfect 
an  example  of  regular  Presbyterian  discipline,  as  is  presented  by 
any  body  of  Christians  at  the  present  day.  There  are,  however, 
several  respects  in  which  that  Synod  differed,  in  its  modes  of  action, 
from  what  is  now  common  among  us.  In  the  first  place,  it  had  a 
commission  annually  appointed,  which  was  clothed  with  all  the 
powers  of  the  Synod.  To  this  commission  all  items  of  business 
which  could  not  be  despatched  during  the  sessions  of  Synod,  were 
referred.  To  them  all  applications  were  made,  which  required  im- 
mediate attention.  They  could  suspend,  censure,  or  dismiss  minis- 
ters ;  decide  appeals  and  references ;  and,  in  short,  do  all  that  the 
Synod  itself  could  do ;  and  from  their  decisions  there  was  no  ap- 
peal. Their  records  were  regularly  presented  to  Synod,  and  that 
body  could  correct  any  thing  which  they  thought  had  been  done 
amiss.  Every  one  knows  that  this  was  in  imitation  of  the  com- 
mission of  the  General  Assembly  in  Scotland,  as  it  continues  to 
the  present  time.  Whatever  maybe  thought  of  the  wisdom  of  this 
arrangement,  there  can  be  but  one  opinion  as  to  the  tone  of  Pres- 
byterianism  which  it  indicates.  If  Congregationalists  refuse  to  a 
whole  Synod  a  definitive  voice  in  their  ecclesiastical  affairs,  how 
much  less  would  they  grant  such  authority  to  a  mere  committee  of 
such  a  body  !  The  fact  that  no  such  commission  has  been  ap- 
pointed since  the  adoption  of  our  present  constitution,  is  one  of 
the  many  proofs  that  the  Presbyterianism  of  the  present  day  is 
much  less  strict  and  European  than  that  of  our  fathers.  They  had 
no  objection  to  this  feature  of  the  Scottish  system.  It  continued 
uninterruptedly  from  1720  to  1788.  It  was  adopted  by  the  old 
Synod  before  the  schism  ;  by  both  parties  during  the  separation  ; 
and  by  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  after  the  union. 
The  original  minute  on  this  subject,  as  adopted  in  1720,  is  in  these 
words :  "  Overtured  that  a  commission  of  Synod  be  appointed  to 
act  in  the  name,  and  with  the  whole  authority  of  the  Synod  in  all 
affairs  that  come  before  them ;  and  especially  that  the  whole  affair 
of  the  fund  be  left  to  their  conduct,  and  that  they  be  accountable 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  113 

to  Synod.  Which  overture  was  approved  by  the  Synod.  Masters 
Jones,  Andrews,  McNish,  Anderson,  Dickinson,  and  Evans,  ap- 
pointed for  said  commission  ;  any  three  whereof  to  be  a  quorum."  * 

A  second  particular  in  which  the  first  Synod  differed  from  ours, 
was  the  frequent  appointment  of  plenipotentiary  committees.  In 
1717,  when  the  call  from  New  York  was  presented  to  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Castle  for  Mr.  Anderson,  it  was  referred  by  that  body 
to  the  Synod,  who  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  at  New  Castle, 
to  receive  and  consider  the  reasons  of  that  people  against  the  re- 
moval of  their  pastor,  and  "to  fully  determine  in  that  affair." 
The  following  year  that  committee  reported  "  that  they  had  trans- 
ported him  (Mr.  Anderson)  to  New  York,  having  had  power  lodged 
in  them  by  the  Synod  to  determine  that  affair."  In  1720,  some  of 
the  elders  of  the  church  of  Rehoboth  having  forwarded  a  complaint 
against  their  pastor,  it  was  determined,  nem.  con.  "  that  a  committee 
be  sent  to  Rehoboth,  with  full  powers  from  the  Synod  to  act  in  their 
name  and  by  their  authority,  in  the  affair  between  Mr.  Clement  and 
that  people,  and  that  Mr.  Clement  be  suspended  from  the  exercise 
of  his  ministry  until  the  determination  of  that  committee."  On 
the  same  page  there  is  a  record  of  a  committee's  being  appointed 
to  proceed  to  Snowhill,  "  with  full  powers  to  hear,  examine,  and 
determine  about  the  complaints"  made  against  the  pastor. 

In  1722,  the  Presbytery  had  suspended  a  Mr.  Walton,  a  licentiate, 
who  thereupon  complained  to  Synod.  The  Synod  in  consequence 
of  his  concessions  modified  the  sentence,  suspending  him  for  three 
Sabbaths,  and  directing  his  acknowledgments  to  be  read,  at  the  ex- 
piration of  that  time,  before  the  congregation  of  Newark.  If  Mr. 
Walton  should  then  "own"  those  acknowledgments,  Mr.  Pumry, 
who  was  appointed  for  the  purpose,  was  to  remove  the  suspension. 

*  The  fund  mentioned  in  this  minute  was  designed  for  "  pious  uses ;"  for 
aiding  feeble  congregations,  relieving  the  widows  of  ministers,  or  ministers 
themselves  when  sick  or  in  want.  It  arose  from  collections  from  the  several 
congregations,  and  from  contributions  from  abroad.  One  of  the  earliest  con- 
tributors was  the  Synod  of  Glasgow  and  Ayr,  as  appears  from  the  minutes  of 
1719,  which  mention  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  receive  the  collection 
of  that  Synod  "  if  it  arrive  safe  in  goods,"  with  directions  to  have  the  proceeds 
Bufely  invested. 

8 


Ill  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

As  the  gentleman,  however,  seemed  rather  refractory,  it  was  resolved : 
"  That  the  Synod  do  appoint  Messrs.  George  McNish,  James  An- 
derson, and  Samuel  Pumry,  or  any  two  of  them,  do,  in  the  Synod's 
name,  judicially  deal  with  him  upon  information,  as  they  shall  see 
proper."  It  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  following  year  that 
Mr.  Pumry  was  prevented  by  illness  from  attending  at  Newark  at 
the  appointed  time  ;  and  that  Mr.  Walton  read  his  own  acknowledg- 
ment "and  absolved  himself."  Whereupon  the  Synod  determined 
that  the  suspension  was  not  thereby  removed,  and  appointed  "  the 
Presbytery  of  Long  Island,  together  with  Mr.  J.  Dickinson,  Mr. 
Morgan,  and  Mr.  Pierson,  to  be  a  committee  to  transact  in  the 
whole  affair  relating  to  Mr.  Walton,  and  to  remove  or  continue  the 
suspension,  as  they  shall  see  cause."  This  committee,  as  appears 
from  their  report,  met  according  to  appointment,  and  unanimously 
decided  that  the  suspension  should  not  be  removed.  This  is  an  in- 
structive record,  as  it  shows  not  only  the  authority  of  the  Synod  in 
modifying  the  sentence  of  a  Presbytery,  but  the  peculiarity  of  their 
mode  of  proceeding,  in  appointing,  in  the  first  instance,  a  committee 
of  three  to  proceed  judicially,  should  occasion  require  it ;  and  then 
naming  several  ministers  to  be  associated  with  a  Presbytery  in 
deciding  the  whole  affair. 

In  1727,  "  Messrs.  Andrews,  Morgan,  Jon.  Dickinson,  Pierson, 
and  Webb,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  in  New  York,  to 
accommodate  matters  of  difference  between  that  congregation  and 
the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island,  and  also  any  other  differences  that 
maybe  among  themselves  about  their  church  settlements,  and  espe- 
cially to  receive  Mr.  Pemberton  as  a  member  of  the  Synod  or  not, 
as  they  shall  see  cause."  The  following  year  that  committee  re- 
ported among  other  things,  "  That  Mr.  Pemberton  appearing  before 
this  committee,  and  desiring  admission  as  a  member  of  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  promised  upon  such  admission,  all  subjection  to  the 
Synod  in  the  Lord,  the  committee  can  see  no  cause  why  such  admis- 
sion should  be  refused  or  delayed,  and  do  therefore  admit  him  as  a 
member  of  the  said  Synod."  There  seems  to  have  been  some  mis- 
apprehensions as  to  the  authority  meant  to  be  conferred  on  this  com- 
mittee ;  "or  when  their  report  was  presented,  the  following  questions 
were  pr  posed  to  the  vote  of  Synod. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  115 

"  1.  Whether  the  committee  had  authority  from  the  Synod  to 
consider  the  admission  of  Mr.  Pemberton  as  a  member  of  the  Synod, 
without  previously  considering  what  the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island 
had  to  offer  in  that  affair.  Carried  in  the  negative  by  a  great 
majority. 

"  2.  Whether  the  Synod  approve  of  the  conduct  of  the  committee 
with  relation  to  the  divisions  of  the  said  congregation.  Carried  in 
the  affirmative,  nem.  con.* 

"  3.  Whether  Mr.  Pemberton  be  allowed  as  a  member  of 
this  Synod,  by  virtue  of  what  the  committee  has  done.  Carried  in 
the  negative. 

"  4.  Whether,  notwithstanding  of  all  the  irregularity  that  was 
in  the  accession  of  Mr.  Pemberton  to  New  York,  the  Synod  do  now 
accept  him  as  a  member.  Carried  in  the  affirmative,  nem.  con. 
And  it  is  left  to  Mr.  Pemberton  and  the  congregation  to  join  what 
Presbytery  they  shall  think  fit. 

These  instances  of  plenipotentiary  committees  are  all  selected  from 

*  The  substance  of  the  arrangement  effected  by  the  committee,  in  reference 
to  the  difficulties  in  the  congregation,  was  as  follows ; 

1.  Messrs.  Licldel,  Blake,  and  Inglis,  were  to  make  over  all  their  interest  in 
the  meeting-house,  &c,  to  certain  ministers  in  Edinburgh,  and  to  Dr.  Nicoll, 
"  for  the  use  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  New  York ;"  and  they  were  to 
empower  the  Presbytery  of  Edinburgh  to  supply  the  vacancies  in  the  above- 
named  trustees,  as  they  might  occur.  Dr.  Nicoll  was  to  cancel  all  bonds 
given  by  Messrs.  Liddel,  Blake,  and  Inglis,  on  account  of  the  said  meeting- 
house. 

2.  Dr.  Nicoll  was  to  give  a  bond  for  two  thousand  pounds,  to  the  ministers 
of  Edinburgh,  that  neither  he  nor  his  heir  would  ever  alienate  their  interest 
in  the  above-mentioned  property ;  and  that,  as  soon  as  he  was  paid  what 
was  due  to  him,  he  would  make  over  to  those  ministers  all  his  interest  in  the 
property. 

3.  No  repairs  were  to  be  made  or  expenses  incurred  without  the  consent  of 
the  majority  of  the  congregation. 

4.  It  was  agreed  that  the  congregation  might  choose  five  men  as  public 
managers  or  representatives.  And  Dr.  Nicoll  agreed,  that  whoever  wished 
might  have  copies  at  their  own  expense,  of  any  of  the  papers  in  his  hands  re- 
lating to  the  congregation. 

These  articles  were  signed  by  John  Nicoll,  John  Blake,  Thomas  Inglis,  and 
Joseph  Liddel. 


116  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  minutes  of  the  years  1717  to  1728,  the  limit  of  the  period  no^v 
under  consideration.  Many  examples  of  a  similar  kind  might  be 
taken  from  the  records  of  subsequent  years.  It  has  already  been 
shown  that  this  mode  of  proceeding,  though  so  different  from  our 
method  of  conducting  Synodical  business,  is  in  perfect  accordance 
with  that  in  vogue  in  Scotland. 

The  great  distinction,  however,  between  the  original  Synod  and 
ours,  is,  that  the  former  exercised  all  Presbyterial  powers.  They 
examined  and  received  new  members  ;  ordained,  dismissed,  suspend- 
ed, or  deposed  ministers  ;  regulated  the  affairs  of  congregations, 
and  in  short  did  every  thing  within  their  whole  limits,  that  any 
Presbytery  might  properly  do  within  its  own.  Thus  in  1718,  it  is 
recorded  that,  "  Mr.  Wm.  Tennent's  affair  being  transmitted  from 
the  committee  [of  bills  and  overtures]  to  the  Synod,  was  by  them 
fully  considered  ;  being  well  satisfied  with  his  credentials,  and  the 
testimony  of  some  brethren  here  present,  as  also  they  were  satisfied 
with  the  material  reasons  which  he  offered  concerning  his  dissenting 
from  the  established  church  in  Ireland  ;  being  put  to  a  vote,  it  was 
carried  in  the  affirmative  to  admit  him  a  member  of  Synod."  On 
the  following  page  it  is  stated,  that  "  Mr.  Samuel  Young,  minister 
of  the  gospel,  presenting  his  credentials  from  the  Presbytery  of 
Armagh,  met  at  Donaghmore,  in  the  county  Down,  in  the  kingdom 
of  Ireland,  to  this  Synod,  they  were  cordially  approved,  and  he 
admitted  a  member,  nem.  con."  In  the  same  year  Messrs.  Clement 
and  Steward,  probationers,  presented  their  credentials,  which  were 
approved ;  and  calls  having  been  handed  in  for  them  from  the  East- 
ern Shore  of  Maryland,  the  Synod  appointed  Messrs.  Davis,  Hamp- 
ton, and  Thompson,  and  such  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle  as  they  might  choose  to  call  to  their  aid,  to  ordain  them. 
The  same  year  Mr.  Hampton  petitioned  to  be  dismissed  from  his 
pastoral  charge,  which  Avas  granted,  and  his  church  declared  vacant 
by  the  Synod.  In  1720,  Mr.  Orme  presented  his  testimonials,  and 
was  admitted  a  member  of  Synod ;  Mr.  John  Morehead  applied 
for  admission,  and  was  refused.  The  complaints  made  by  the  elders 
of  the  church  of  Rehoboth  against  their  pastor,  were  entertained, 
and  he  suspended  by  the  Synod  ad  interim,  and  the  whole  matter 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  117 

referred  to  a  committee  of  their  own  body.  In  1726,  a  call  from 
Donegal  for  Mr.  Anderson  was  presented  to  the  Synod,  and  by  them 
handed  to  him  for  his  acceptance.  In  1728,  various  charges  were 
presented  by  a  people  against  their  pastor,  which  were  examined  ; 
from  most  of  them  he  was  acquitted,  while  others  were  referred  to 
his  Presbytery  for  further  examination.  These  are  only  a  few  of 
the  examples  Avhich  might  be  selected  of  the  exercise  of  Presby- 
terial  powers  by  the  Synod.  All  this  is  very  different  from  any 
thing  we  are  accustomed  to,  but  it  is  in  perfect  accordance  Avith  the 
Scotch  system.  The  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  following 
provision  of  the  Book  of  Policy :  "  These  assemblies,  (viz.  Synods,) 
have  the  whole  power  of  the  particular  elderships,  (Presbyteries,)  of 
which  they  are  collected."*  It  appears,  then,  that  the  original  Synod 
of  our  church  not  only  exercised  all  the  powers  which  are  now  recog- 
nized as  belonging  to  such  bodies,  but  that  it  went  much  further, 
conforming  in  various  respects  to  the  Scottish  model,  in  points  in 
which  we  have  long  differed  from  it. 

There  is  still  one  very  important  record  belonging  to  the  period 
under  review,  which  remains  to  be  considered.  In  1721,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Gillespie,  who  had  been  nine  years  a  member  of  the  Synod,  and 
was  not,  therefore,  a  young  man  just  from  Scotland,  as  has  been 
represented,  brought  forward  the  following  overture :  "  As  we  have 
been  for  many  years  in  the  exercise  of  Presbyterian  government 
and  church  discipline,  as  exercised  by  the  Presbyterians  in  the  best 
reformed  churches,  as  far  as  the  nature  and  constitution  of  this 
country  will  allow,  our  opinion  is,  that  if  any  brother  have  any 
overture  to  offer  to  be  formed  into  an  act  of  Synod,  for  the  better 
carrying  on  the  matters  of  our  government  and  discipline,  he  may 
bring  it  in  against  next  Synod."  This  overture  was  carried  by  a 
majority  of  votes,  and  ordered  to  be  recorded. 

"  Mr.  Jon.  Dickinson,  Mr.  Malachi  Jones,  Mr.  Joseph  Morgan, 
Mr.  John  Pierson,  Mr.  David  Evans,  and  Mr.  Joseph  Webb,  entered 
their  protestations  against  the  above-mentioned  act,  and  the  record- 

*  Calderwood,  p.  109.  Eldership  is  the  old  Scotch  name  for  Presbytery,  and 
is  described  as  consisting  "  of  pastors,  doctors,  and  such  as  we  call  elders,  than 
labour  not  in  word  or  doctrine." 


118  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ing  of  it,  and  gave  the  reasons  of  their  protest,  which  are  in  retentif, 
Ordered,  that  Mr.  Magill  and  Mr.  McNish  draw  up  answers  to  the 
above  said  protest." 

At  this  meeting  of  Synod  there  were  twenty-one  ministers  present, 
viz.  Messrs.  Magill,  AndreAvs,  Gillespie,  Anderson,  Orine,  Wra.  Ten- 
nent,  Thompson,  Hook,  Pumry,  Davis,  Cross,  Steward,  Gelston, 
McNish,  Conn ;  and  the  six  protesting  brethren  just  mentioned. 
Of  these  six,  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Pierson,  and  Webb,  were  from 
New  England ;  and  Messrs.  Morgan,  Evans,  and  Jones,  were  pro- 
bably all  of  Welsh  origin.  Though  it  cannot  .be  certainly  inferred 
that  all  who  did  not  join  in  the  protest,  voted  for  the  overture,  yet 
it  is  highly  probable  that  the  above  division  gives  a  fair  view  of  the 
state  of  parties,  so  to  speak,  in  the  Synod.  This  was  a  subject 
which  evidently  excited  much  interest,  with  regard  to  which  there 
were  not  likely  to  be  many  non  liquets  ;  and  in  the  following  year, 
we  find  no  additional  names  attached  to  Mr.  Dickinson's  articles 
relating  to  this  subject. 

No  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  history  either  of  our  own  church,  or 
of  that  of  Scotland,  can  be  at  a  loss  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"  an  act  of  Synod,"  as  used  in  Mr.  Gillespie's  overture.  Any  pro- 
position containing  a  rule  of  action,  enacted  by  an  ecclesiastical 
body,  obligatory  on  its  members  or  inferior  judicatories,  is  called  an 
act.  The  records  of  the  church  of  Scotland  are  full  of  such  acts, 
which  are  rules  remaining  in  force  until  properly  repealed.  The 
records  of  our  own  church  abound  with  similar  rules,  which,  especially 
in  the  earlier  periods  of  our  history,  are  called  acts.  The  rule  that 
ministers  and  elders  should  regularly  report  on  the  state  of  their  con- 
gregations, was  such  an  act ;  the  rule  that  every  church  should  keep 
sessional  records,  and  present  them  annually  for  revision,  was  such 
an  act,  and  is  so  called  in  the  minutes  already  quoted.  Such  also 
was  the  order  that  Presbyteries  should  bring  their  minutes  to  be 
examined  in  Synod.  All  these  were  adopted  prior  to  the  year  1717. 
Even  the  order  that  no  minister  should  preach  in  a  particular  church, 
is  called,  as  we  have  seen,  "  an  act  of  Synod."  Mr.  Gillespie's  pro- 
position, therefore,  was  in  strict  accordance,  not  only  with  the  usage 
of  other  Presbyterian  churches,  but  with  the  customs  of  our  own. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  119 

It  was,  moreov<  r,  perfectly  reasonable.  The  church  was  now  divided 
into  several  Presbyteries.  If  it  was  to  remain  one  body,  it  wa* 
evidently  desirable  that  it  should  have  some  common  rules  of  action 
with  regard  to  the  qualifications  of  candidates,  the  admission  of 
members,  &c.  such  as  we  have  now  embodied  in  our  written  consti- 
tution, and  such  as  not  only  Episcopalians  and  Methodists  have  in 
their  canons  and  books  of  discipline,  but  even  Congregationalists 
possess  in  the  Cambridge  and  Saybrook  Platforms.  The  propriety 
and  even  necessity  of  this  measure  were  so  obvious,  that,  after  a 
little  temporary  opposition,  arising  as  is  evident  from  misapprehen- 
sion, it  was  cordially  acquiesced  in  by  all  parties,  and  has  been  from 
that  day  to  this  the  common  understanding  of  the  church. 

It  seems,  however,  that  some  members  of  the  Synod  were  startled 
at  the  assertion  of  a  power  in  the  abstract,  which  they  had  them- 
selves already  exercised,*  and  were  afraid  of  its  being  carried  to  an 
extent  to  which  they  could  not  willingly  submit.  They  therefore 
protested.  The  minutes  of  the  next  year  contain  the  following 
record  relating  to  this  subject :  "  The  brethren  who  entered  their 
protestation  against  the  act  for  allowing  any  brother  or  member  of 
this  Synod  to  bring  in  any  overture  to  be  formed  into  an  act  by  the 
Synod,  for  the  better  carrying  on  in  the  matters  of  our  government 
and  discipline,  &c.  The  said  brethren  protestants  brought  in  a  paper 
of  four  articles,  testifying  in  writing  their  sentiments  and  judgment 
concerning  church  government,  which  was  approved  by  the  Synod,  and 
ordered  by  the  Synod  to  be  recorded  in  the  Synod-book.  Likewise 
the  said  brethren  being  willing  to  take  back  their  protestation  against 
said  act,  together  with  their  reasons  given  in  defence  of  said  protest, 
the  Synod  doth  hereby  order  the  protest,  together  with  the  reasons 
of  it,  as  also  the  answers  at  the  appointment  of  the  Synod  given  to 
the  reasons  alleged  by  Mr.  Daniel  Magill  and  Mr.  George  McNish, 
be  all  withdrawn,  and  that  the  said  act  remain  and  be  in  all  respects 
as  if  no  such  protest  had  been  made.  The  articles  are  as  fol- 
loweth : 

*  This  is  believed  to  be  true  of  all  the  protestants,  unless  Mr.  Webb  be  an 
exception.  As  he  had  but  just  entered  the  Synod,  he  may  have  never  voted 
for  any  such  rule,  as  Mr.  Gillespie  contemplated.  Mr.  Dickinson  and  Mr.  Pier- 
son  had  been  four  years  members. 


120  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

"  J.  We  freely  grant  that  there  is  full  executive  power  of  church 
government  in  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  and  that  they  may  author- 
itatively, in  the  name  of  Christ,  use  the  keys  of  church  discipline 
to  all  proper  intents  and  purposes,  and  that  the  keys  of  the  church 
are  committed  to  the  church  officers  and  them  only. 

"  2.  We  also  grant  that  the  mere  circumstantials  of  church  dis- 
cipline, such  as  the  time,  place,  and  mode  of  carrying  on  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,  belong  to  ecclesiastical  judicatories  to 
determine  as  occasions  occur,  conformable  to  the  general  rules  in 
the  word  of  God,  that  require  all  things  to  be  done  decently  and  in 
order.  And  if  these  things  are  called  acts,  we  will  take  no  offence 
at  the  word,  provided  that  these  acts  be  not  imposed  on  those  who 
conscientiously  dissent  from  them. 

"  3.  We  also  grant  that  Synod  may  compose  directories,  and 
recommend  them  to  all  their  members  respecting  all  the  parts  of 
discipline,  provided  that  all  subordinate  judicatories  may  decline 
from  such  directories,  when  they  conscientiously  think  they  have 
just  reason  so  to  do. 

"  4.  We  freely  allow  that  appeals  may  be  made  from  all  inferior 
to  superior  judicatories,  and  that  superior  judicatories  have  author- 
ity to  consider  and  determine  such  appeals. 

Malachi  Jones, 
Joseph  Morgan, 
Jonathan  Dickinson, 
David  Evans." 

"  The  Synod  was  so  universally  pleased  with  the  above  said  com- 
posure of  their  difference,  that  they  unanimously  joined  together 
in  a  thanksgiving  prayer,  and  joyful  singing  the  133d  Psalm."* 

*  The  reader  cannot  fail  to  notice  that  these  four  articles  contain  the  whole 
system  of  Presbyterianism.  They  assert,  1.  That  the  government  and  disci- 
pline of  individual  churches  belong  to  the  church  officers,  and  not  to  the 
church  members.  2.  That  full  executive  power  of  church  government  belongs 
to  Presbyteries  and  Synods.  3.  That  the  higher  judicatories  have  the  right 
to  review  and  control  the  decisions  of  the  lower.  The  only  other  feature  of 
the  system  is  the  right  of  Synods  to  make  acts,  or  "  to  set  down  rules  for  the 
government  of  the  church."     How  far  their  authors  denied  this,  remains  to  be 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  121 

It  is  evident  from  this  record  that  these  brethren,  who  the  year 
before  supposed  themselves  to  differ  widely  in  their  views,  found, 
upon  mutual  explanations,  that  they  perfectly  agreed.  It  is  to  be 
remarked  that  the  friends  of  Mr.  Gillespie's  overture  did  not  re- 
linquish the  ground  which  they  had  assumed.  On  the  contrary,  it 
was  expressly  stipulated,  "  that  the  said  act  (Mr.  Gillespie's)  re- 
main and  be  in  all  respects  as  if  no  such  protest  had  been  made." 
The  protestation  and  the  reasons  for  it  were  withdrawn,  and  the 
matter  left  where  it  was,  as  though  no  objection  had  ever  been 
urged  against  it.  There  was,  therefore,  no  concession  inconsistent 
with  the  assertion  of  the  principle  contained  in  the  overture. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  either  party  was  overreached  in 
this  matter.  It  would  be  a  gratuitous  and  ungracious  assumption, 
that  there  was,  on  either  side,  a  wish  to  hoodwink  or  cajole  the 
other.  These  brethren,  from  all  that  appears  or  is  known  of  their 
character,  were  honest  men,  and  had  confidence  in  each  other. 
This  must  be  presumed,  unless  we  suppose  them  capable  of  the 
basest  hypocrisy  in  thanking  God  for  the  success  of  a  stratagem. 
This  is  not  to  be  credited  of  such  men  as  President  Dickinson,  and 
Mr.  Pierson.  Besides,  the  brethren  on  the  other  side  were  not 
likely  to  be  easily  deceived.  Most  of  the  oldest,  shrewdest,  and 
most  strenuous  of  the  Scotch  and  Irish  members  of  the  Synod 
were  present  at  this  meeting,  concurred  in  all  that  was  done,  and 
joined  in  giving  thanks  to  God  for  the  result.*  Two  things,  there- 
fore, are  evident ;  first,  that  there  must  have  been  some  misappre- 
hension, on  the  part  of  Mr.  Dickinson  and  his  friends,  of  the  de- 
sign of  Mr.  Gillespie's  overture,  against  which  they  at  first  pro- 
tested, but  subsequently  allowed  to  stand  as  it  was  ;  and  secondly, 
that  Mr.  Dickinson's  four  articles  must  admit  of  an  interpretation 
consistent  with    that  overture,  and    satisfactory  to  its  advocates. 

seen.  This  record  is  the  more  interesting,  as  these  articles  proceeded  from 
the  least  Presbyterian  part  of  the  Synod,  and  therefore  conclusively  prove  how 
little  there  was  of  Congregationalism  in  that  body,  or  rather  that  there  was 
none  at  all. 

*  There  were  nineteen  ministers  present  at  Synod  this  year ;  among  whom 
were  Messrs.  Anderson,  Gillespie,  Thompson  and  Cross. 


122  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCn 

Otherwise  they  never  would  have  insisted  on  the  overture's  remain- 
ing, and  yet  have  adopted  the  articles.  The  protesting  brethren 
seem  to  have  considered  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Gillespie,  asserting 
as  it  does  in  general  terms  and  with  little  limitation,  the  right  of 
the  Synod  to  form  acts  obligatory  on  all  its  members,  as  assuming 
the  power  "to  make  laws  to  bind  the  conscience."  The  right  to 
make  rules  for  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  church,  and  to 
frame  directories,  they  admitted ;  provided  these  rules  did  not  tres- 
pass on  the  domain  of  conscience.  With  this  the  friends  of  the 
overture  were  perfectly  satisfied.  It  was  all  they  ever  intended  or 
wished.  Thus  both  parties  united  in  letting  the  overture  stand,  in 
ordering  the  articles  to  be  recorded,  and  in  praising  God  for  their 
agreement. 

That  this  is  the  true  solution  of  this  problem  in  our  history,  is 
evident,  in  the  first  place,  from  the  very  facts  of  the  case  as  they 
appear  on  the  record.  A  proposition  is  introduced  asserting  the 
right  of  the  Synod  to  make  rules  for  the  government  of  the  church. 
This  proposition  is  adopted.  Certain  members  protest ;  but  the 
following  year  they  withdraw  their  opposition,  and  acknowledge 
that  Synod  may  make  such  rules,  "  provided  such  acts  be  not  im- 
posed upon  those  who  conscientiously  dissent  from  them."  The 
question  is,  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  proviso  ?  It  is  certainly 
ambiguous.  It  admits  of  one  interpretation,  which  involves  both 
parties  to  this  transaction  in  glaring  contradictions ;  but  also  of 
another,  which  makes  them  both  act  consistently.  If  by  ' consci- 
entious dissent'  is  meant  dissent  on  conscientious  grounds,  all  is 
plain  and  satisfactory.  The  Synod  never  pretended  to  the  right  to 
impose  any  thing  upon  any  man  contrary  to  his  conscience.  But 
if  by  conscientious  dissent  is  meant  merely  honest  dissent,  in  op- 
position to  what  is  feigned  or  factious,  then  the  whole  history  is  a 
riddle.  The  Synod  declare  their  right  to  make  rules,  and  yet  ad- 
mit they  may  be  regarded  or  disregarded  at  every  man's  pleasure  ! 
Is  it  to  be  credited  that  a  set  of  Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyterians 
would  have  assented  to  such  an  exposition  of  a  Synod's  power,  or 
have  joined  in  thanking  God  for  its  acknowledgment  ?  It  is  not 
to  be  believed  that  any  sane  men  would  have  insisted  that  the  as 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  123 

sertion  of  this  right  of  the  Synod  should  stand  uncontradicted  upon 
the  minutes,  and  upon  the  next  page  admit  that  Synoclical  rules 
had  no  binding  force :  the  two  assertions  are  contradictory,  and 
could  not  have  received  the  assent  of  the  same  men.  The  record 
itself,  therefore,  forces  us  to  understand,  by  conscientious  dissent, 
dissent  on  conscientious  grounds.  This  interpretation  does  no  vio- 
lence to  the  words,  and  renders  the  different  parts  of  the  minutes 
perfectly  consistent. 

That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  these  articles  is  further  proved 
by  the  uniform  action  of  the  church  under  them.  This  argument 
can  be  fully  appreciated  by  those  only  who  are  aware  of  the  fact 
that  our  records  abound  with  rules,  or  acts  of  Synod,  many  of  them 
passed  by  mere  majorities,  to  which  the  minorities  uniformly  sub- 
mitted, except  when  they  could  plead  conscientious  scruples.  To 
take  a  single  example.  What  was  the  famous  adopting  act  of  1729  ? 
Was  this  a  mere  recommendation  on  the  part  of  the  Synod  that 
the  reception  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  should  be 
demanded  by  the  Presbyteries  from  all  candidates  for  the  ministry  ? 
Far  from  it.  It  was  an  obligatory  act ;  so  regarded  at  the  time, 
and  so  regarded,  by  friends  and  foes  of  the  measure,  from  that  day 
to  this.  This  indeed  is  evident  from  the  very  form  of  it,  as  well 
as  from  the  contention  about  it,  and  from  the  uniformity  with 
which  it  was  enforced.  An  act  of  Synod,  therefore,  in  the  view 
of  those  who  assented  to  these  articles,  was  not  a  mere  recommend- 
ation, but  an  authoritative  rule. 

This  interpretation  of  these  articles  is  confirmed  by  what  took 
place  at  the  time  of  the  schism.  This  question  was  involved  in 
that  controversy.  The  ostensible  occasion  of  the  whole  difficulty 
was  an  act  of  Synod.  That  body  had  passed  an  order  that  candi- 
dates for  the  ministry,  before  being  taken  on  trial  by  a  Presby- 
tery, should  be  furnished  with  a  diploma  from  some  European  uni- 
versity, or  from  some  college  in  New  England,  or,  wanting  these, 
that  they  should  be  provided  with  a  certificate  of  competent  scholar- 
ship by  a  committee  of  the  Synod.  This  act  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Brunswick  disregarded.  Their  reason  was  not  the  denial  of 
the  right  of  the  Synod  to  make  such  rules,  but  the  plea  that  they 


124  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

could  not  conscientiously  obey  that  particular  rule.*     Their  con- 
Bcientious  dissent  was  a  dissent  for  conscience'  sake. 

And  finally,  the  true  interpretation  of  these  articles,  or  the  manner 
in  which  they  were  understood,  is  manifest  from  the  manner  in  which 
this  matter  was  arranged  upon  the  re-union  of  the  two  Synods. 
As  the  right  of  the  Synod  to  make  such  acts  had  been  drawn  into 
the  controversy,  it  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  some  distinct 
agreement  on  the  subject.  Though  the  negotiations  for  a  union 
were  protracted  through  several  years,  and  though  much  difficulty 
was  experienced  in  arranging  other  points,  that  respecting  the 
power  of  Synod  seems  to  have  been  settled  at  once.  The  reason  was, 
there  was  no  real  difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject.  Both  parties 
agreed,  "  that  when  any  matter  is  determined  by  a  major  vote, 
every  member  shall  either  actively  concur  with,  or  passively  submit 
to  such  determination  ;  or,  if  his  conscience  permit  him  to  do  neither, 
he  shall,  after  sufficient  liberty  modestly  to  reason  and  remonstrate, 
peaceably  withdraw  from  our  communion,  without  attempting  to 
make  any  schism.  Provided  always  that  this  shall  be  understood 
to  extend  to  such  determinations  only  as  the  body  shall  judge  in- 
dispensable in  doctrine  or  Presbyterian  government,  "f  This  is 
precisely  the  meaning  of  Mr.  Dickinson's  article  on  the  same  sub- 
ject. The  decisions  of  Synod  were  to  be  binding  on  all  those  who 
could  obey  them  with  a  good  conscience.!     This  interpretation  is 

*  Their  opponents,  indeed,  charged  them  with  going  further,  and  with  tak- 
ing the  general  ground ;  but  this  they  denied.  And  well  they  might,  for  they 
were  the  greatest  rule-makers  in  the  whole  Synod. 

f  Article  second  of  the  Terms  of  Union ;  see  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York.     Appendix. 

X  A  still  more  decisive  proof  that  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  these  articles, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  second  of  the  articles  agreed  upon  by  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  as  "  the  plan  and  foundation  of  their  Synodical  union."  This  Synod 
was  formed  in  1745,  a  few  years  after  the  schism.  President  Dickinson  was 
present  when  these  articles  were  adopted,  and  was  in  all  probability  the 
framer  of  them.  The  members  of  that  body  say :  "  They  agree  that  in  matters 
of  discipline,  and  those  things  which  relate  to  the  peace  and  good  order  of 
our  churches,  they  shall  be  determined  according  to  the  major  vote  of  minis- 
ters and  elders,  with  which  vote  every  member  shall  actively  concur,  or  pas- 
eively  acquiesce ;  but  if  any  member  cannot  in  conscience  agree  to  the  deter- 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  125 

the  only  one  consistent  with  the  facts  in  the  case  ;  with  the  known 
and  vowed  opinions  of  those  who  assented  to  the  articles  ;  with  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  church  after  their  adoption  ;  and  with  the 
more  explicit  declarations  of  the  Synod  relating  to  the  same  subject. 
On  the  opposite  interpretation  these  articles  are  completely  iso- 
lated :  inconsistent  with  all  that  precedes  and  with  all  that  follows 
them,  like  a  dead  tree  in  a  long  avenue  of  living  ones. 

Such  then  was  American  Presbyterianism  during  the  forming 
period  of  our  Church,  from  1705  or  1706  to  1728.  When  the  Pres- 
bytery was  organized,  there  was  but  one  congregation  in  New  Jer- 
sey, the  Scotch  church  at  Freehold,  in  connection  with  it.  Those 
in  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  were  strictly  Presbyterian,  unless 
the  church  in  Philadelphia  was  an  exception.  All  the  original 
members,  except  Mr.  Andrews,  were,  as  far  as  can  be  ascertained, 
educated  and  ordained  in  Scotland  or  Ireland.  Such  was  the 
original  body  around  which,  as  a  nucleus,  other  churches  and  min- 
isters were  rapidly  collected.  This  Presbytery  exercised  all  Pres- 
byterial  functions  as  fully  as  any  similar  body  at  the  present  day ; 
reviewing  and  controlling  the  exercise  of  discipline  in  the  several 

urination  of  the  majority,  but  supposes  himself  obliged  to  act  contrary  there- 
unto, and  the  Synod  think  themselves  obliged  to  insist  upon  it  as  essentially 
necessary  to  the  well-being  of  our  churches,  in  that  case  such  dissenting 
member  promises  peaceably  to  withdraw  from  the  body,  without  endeavour- 
ing to  raise  any  dispute  or  contention  upon  the  debated  point,  or  any  unjust 
alienation  of  affection  from  them. —  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  2. 
There  were  twenty-two  ministers  present  when  this  Synod  was  constituted 
and  these  articles  were  adopted ;  among  whom,  besides  President  Dickinson, 
were  Messrs.  Pierson,  Pemberton,  Burr,  G.  Tennent,  "W.  Tennent,  Samuel 
Blair,  John  Blair,  and  Samuel  Finley.  When  the  circumstances  are  consi- 
dered under  which  these  gentlemen  met,  the  above  article,  which  goes  the 
whole  length  of  what  was  contended  for  by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Gillespie's 
overture,  will  appear  the  more  decisive.  A  schism  had  just  occurred  in  the 
church,  from  a  refusal  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  to  submit  to  the 
determination  of  the  Synod  respecting  the  examination  of  candidates.  To 
prevent  any  such  disastrous  occurrence  in  future,  the  members  pledged  them- 
selves, if  they  could  not  conscientiously  submit  to  the  majority,  peaceably  to 
wi  thdraw.  The  unanimous  adoption  of  this  principle  shows  how  unfounded 
is  the  general  impression  of  the  lax  Presbyterianism  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York. 


126  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH. 

churches  ;  examining,  ordaining,  installing,  and  dismissing  pastors, 
and  judging  their  own  members.  The  Synod,  after  its  formation, 
exercised  a  similar  review  and  control  over  the  Presbyteries  and 
congregations ;  received  and  decided  appeals,  and  references,  and 
complaints  from  the  lower  judicatories,  and  not  only  exercised  the 
various  powers  now  recognized  as  belonging  to  Synods,  but,  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  Scottish  system,  all  those  which  more  imme- 
diately pertain  to  Presbyteries.  In  all  the  particulars  in  which 
the  original  Presbytery  and  Synod  differed  from  such  bodies  among 
us,  they  conformed  to  the  usages  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Our 
Church  was,  therefore,  more  strictly  Presbyterian  during  the  first 
five-and-twenty  years  of  its  history,  than  it  has  been  at  any  period 
since  the  formation  of  the  General  Assembly. 


CHAPTER  III. 

PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    FROM    1729    TO    1741. 

Adopting  act. —  Its  origin. —  False  assumptions  as  to  its  design. —  Mr.  Thomp- 
son's overture. —  President  Dickinson's  objections. —  The  act  itself. —  The 
true  interpretation  of  it,  as  determined  by  its  own  language  and  avowed 
design. —  As  determined  by  the  action  of  the  Synod. —  As  authoritatively 
declared  in  1730  and  in  1736. —  How  acted  upon  by  the  Presbyteries. — 
How  explained  by  contemporary  writers. —  What  has  been  the  doctrinal 
standard  in  our  church  since  1729  ?  —  Bearing  of  the  acts  of  1730  and  1736 
upon  this  question. — The  standard  .assumed  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia. — 
The  standard  adopted  in  the  Synod  of  New  York. —  The  standard  assumed 
at  the  time  of  the  union  and  ever  since  maintained. —  Constitution  of  the 
Church  during  the  period  from  1729  to  1741. — Ordinary  powers  of  the  Synod. 
—  Presbyterial  powers  of  the  Synod. —  Its  action  by  committees. — Acts  and 
Overtures. 

The  most  prominent  event  during  this  period  of  our  history  is 
the  passing  of  the  adopting  act,  by  which  assent  to  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  was  required  of  all  members  of  the  Synod,  and 
of  all  candidates,  for  admission  to  the  Presbyteries.  This  event 
forms  an  era  in  our  history,  and  has  exerted  an  influence  on  our 
Church,  which  is  still  felt  in  all  her  borders.  The  origin,  design, 
and  import  of  this  celebrated  act  deserve  particular  attention.  It 
was  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle  had  begun,  at  least  as  early  as  1724,  to  require  the  adoption 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  by  their  candidates  for  the  ministry. 
The  first  record  relating  to  this  subject  refers  to  Mr.  William  Mc- 
Millan, who  was  licensed  September  22,  1724,  for  distant  service  in 
Virginia.  His  subscription  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  bears  the 
same  date.  What  led  to  the  adoption  of  this  measure  is  not  re 
corded ;  and  there  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  previous  order 

(127) 


128  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

of  the  Presbytery  that  such  subscription  should  be  demanded.* 
From  this  time,  however,  it  seems  to  have  been  the  common  prac- 
tice of  the  Presbytery. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  same  reasons  which  induced  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Castle  to  adopt  this  measure  themselves,  would  lead 
them  to  wish  for  the  concurrence  of  the  whole  Church  of  which 
they  were  a  part.  No  one  will  be  surprised,  therefore,  to  learn 
that  the  overture  Avhich  led  to  the  adopting  act  had  its  origin  in 
this  Presbytery.  Under  the  date  of  March  27,  1728,  it  is  re- 
corded that,  "  an  overture  formerly  read  before  Synod,  but  which 
was  dropped,  being  now  at  the  desire  of  the  Presbytery  produced 
by  Mr.  Thompson  and  read,  the  Presbytery  defer  their  judgment 
concerning  it  until  next  meeting."  At  the  subsequent  meeting  the 
subject  was  again  deferred  until  the  sessions  of  the  Presbytery 
during  the  intervals  of  Synod.  No  further  mention  of  it  is  made 
on  the  minutes :  and  it  is  therefore  uncertain  what  was  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Presbytery  respecting  it.  It  is  probable  that  they  re- 
ferred the  whole  matter  to  the  Synod,  without  any  expression  of 
their  own  opinion,  as  it  is  not  reported  as  the  overture  of  a  Pres- 
bytery but  of  an  individual,  and  as  Mr.  Thompson  speaks  in  it, 
throughout,  in  his  own  name.  This  gentleman,  who  is  thus  pro- 
minently connected  with  this  subject,  was  a  native  of  Ireland. 
He  came  to  this  country  as  a  probationer  for  the  ministry  in  1715, 
and  was  ordained  over  the  congregation  at  Lewes  in  1717.  He 
had,  therefore,  been  at  this  time  eleven  years  a  member  of  the 
Synod.  He  appears  to  have  been  a  man  of  self-command,  learn- 
ing, and  piety.  He  took  indeed  an  active,  and  in  some  respects  a 
very  mistaken  part  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Whitefield  and  Mr.  Ten- 
nent ;  yet  no  one  can  read  his  writings  without  being  impressed 
with  respect  for  his  character  and  talents.  And  it  is  a  gratifying 
fact,  that  Mr.  Tennent  himself,  after  the  excitement  of  controversy 
had  subsided,  came  to  speak  of  him  in  terms  of  affectionate  regard. 
Indeed,  were  nothing  known  of  these  men,  but  their  controversial 

*  The  only  ministers  present  at  that  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  were  Messrs. 
Thomas  Creaghead,  George  Gillespie,  John  Orme,  Thomas  Evans,  and  Alex- 
ander Hueheson. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  129 

writings,  the  reader  could  hardly  fail  to  think,  that  in  humility, 
candour,  and  Christian  temper,  Mr.  Thompson  was  greatly  superior 
to  his  opponent.  It  is,  however,  the  weakest  side  of  Mr.  Ten- 
nent's  ardent  and  impetuous  character  that  appears  in  those  wri- 
tings, and  they  therefore  would  be  a  very  unfair  criterion  of  the 
man.* 

When  the  overture  respecting  the  adoption  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  was  introduced  into  Synod  in  1728,  though  it  had  been  pre- 
sented the  year  before,  and  though  there  were  twenty-nine  mem- 
bers present,  of  whom  seventeen  were  ministers,  it  Avas  deemed  of 
so  much  importance  that,  by  common  consent,  it  was  deferred  to 
the  next  Synod.  There  was,  therefore,  no  attempt,  as  has  been 
ungenerously  asserted,  to  take  the  Synod  unawares.  The  record 
in  relation  to  this  point  is  as  follows :  "  There  being  an  overture 
presented  to  the  Synod  in  writing,  having  reference  to  the  sub- 
scribing the  Confession  of  Faith,  &c. ;  the  Synod,  judging  this  to 
be  a  very  important  affair,  unanimously  concluded  to  defer  the  con- 
sideration of  it  till  the  next  Synod  ;  withal  recommending  to  the 
members  of  each  Presbytery  to  give  timeous  notice  to  the  absent 
members,  and  it  is  agreed  that  the  next  be  a  full  Synod."  f 

It  is  strange  that  this  measure,  after  the  lapse  of  a  century, 
should  still  be  held  up  to  reprobation  by  members  of  our  own  com- 
munion. As  every  other  church  has  a  creed,  why  should  not  the 
Presbyterians  be  allowed  to  have  one  ?  Why  should  motives  the 
most  improbable  be  attributed  to  the  advocates  of  this  measure, 
when  reasons  which  the  Christian  world  have,  by  their  practice,  pro- 
nounced sufficient,  lie  on  the  very  surface  of  the  transaction  ?  If 
it  was  so  sectarian  in  1729,  to  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith,  why, 

*  In  what  is  here  said  in  relation  to  Mr.  Thompson's  controversial  writings, 
reference  is  had  to  those  which  were  published  with  his  name,  or  in  defence 
of  the  Synod.  The  writer -is  not  aware  that  any  of  the  scurrilous  anonymous 
publications  of  that  day  were  ever  attributed  to  him. 

f  By  a  full  Synod  is  meant  a  Synod  at  which  all  the  members  were  expected 
to  attend.  In  1724,  it  had  been  agreed  that  the  Presbyteries  should  appear  by 
delegates,  except  every  third  year,  when  all  the  ministers  were  required  to  be 
present.  It  was  provided,  however,  that  if  any  important  business  arose,  the 
commission  was  to  give  notice  for  a  full  meeting. 

9 


130  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

in  the  course  of  more  than  a  hundred  years,  has  the  adopting  act 
never  been  repealed  ?  Why  do  those  who  impute  such  evil  designs 
to  its  authors,  reject  as  injurious  all  suspicion  that  they  are  in  fa- 
vour of  such  repeal,  or  of  any  modification  of  the  Confession 
itself? 

It  has  been  said  that  the  advocates  of  the  adoption  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  designed  to  subject  the  church  irrevocably  to 
the  power  of  the  civil  government,  and  that  this  design  was  suc- 
cessfully resisted  by  the  sons  of  New  England.  This  is  a  calumny 
which  might  safely  be  left  to  be  refuted  by  its  inherent  absurdity. 
All  sects,  even  the  Popish,  are  said  to  be  tolerant,  when  in  the 
minority.  Yet  Presbyterians  call  upon  us  to  believe  that  Presby- 
terians, when  thinly  scattered  over  the  country,  with  some  twenty 
or  thirty  ministers  ;  when  suffering  oppression  in  Carolina,  Virginia, 
and  New  York  ;  when  under  an  Episcopal  government  hostile  to 
all  their  peculiarities,  wished  to  subject  the  church  more  completely 
to  the  state,  to  justify  their  oppressors,  and  to  deprive  themselves 
of  the  poor  consolation  of  petition  and  remonstrance.  To  make 
this  aspersion  the  stronger,  it  is  cast  upon  Scotchmen,  upon  the 
descendants  of  the  men  who  had  been  struggling  for  two  centuries 
for  the  independence  of  the  church  ;  who  had  included  in  their 
earliest  confession  the  assertion  of  the  right  to  resist  unjust  rulers, 
and  whose  great  reproach  is  that  they  carried  the  liberty  of  the 
Church  so  far  as  to  encroach  on  the  just  prerogatives  of  the  State. 
Yet  their  descendants  in  one  breath  are  said  to  have  come  to  this 
country  with  all  the  prejudices  and  principles  of  their  fathers,  and 
in  the  next,  to  have  been  intent  on  establishing  the  doctrine  their 
fathers  had  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things  in  opposing.  The  au- 
thors of  the  overture  in  question  had  no  such  suicidal  or  insensate 
purpose,  as  to  subject  a  feeble  church  to  hostile  magistrates,  or  to 
solicit  injury  from  the  hand  of  oppression.  Presbyterians  in  this 
country  have  always  been  tolerant,  from  necessity,  if  not  from 
principle.  Mr.  Makemie,  when  imprisoned  in  New  York  for 
preaching  the  gospel,  must  have  delivered  his  eloquent  defence 
with  a  very  bad  grace,  had  he  suffered  merely  from  the  application 
of  his  own  principles.     It  is  not  pretended  that  Presbyterians  were 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  131 

so  much  in  advance  of  their  generation,  that  they  would  ha/e  been 
free  from  reproach  in  this  matter,  had  they  been  in  power.  This 
however  was  nowhere  the  case,  for  even  where  they  formed  the 
majority  of  the  people,  they  were  subject  to  Episcopal  rulers  over 
whom  they  had  no  control.  Had  the  case  been  otherwise,  they 
might  have  been  as  intolerant  as  their  neighbours,  and  have  pushed 
their  principles  to  the  extreme  to  which  they  were  carried  in  New 
England.  There,  not  only  all  places  of  power  and  trust,  but  even 
the  right  of  suffrage  was  confined  to  members  of  the  church.  The 
magistrates  were  clothed  with  power  to  punish  for  opinion's  sake  ; 
a  power  which  they  frequently  exercised.  It  is  a  poor  service  to 
the  Puritans  to  deny  their  principles,  or  to  vindicate  their  conduct 
on  grounds  which  they  themselves  would  have  despised.  The  in- 
tolerance of  the  Puritans,  such  as  it  was,  arose  out  of  their  most 
cherished  opinions.  They  came  to  this  country  to  establish  a  so- 
ciety in  which  God  should  reign ;  where  his  truth  should  be  pre- 
served and  his  laws  enforced.  Hence  all  power  was  to  be  kept  in 
the  hands  of  the  people  of  God.  Hence  the  denial  of  the  truth, 
or  any  moral  offence,  was  regarded  as  a  violation  of  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  to  be  punished  accordingly.  Hence,  too,  when  Roger 
Williams  broached  his  doctrine  of  liberty  of  conscience,  not  only 
was  he  banished,  but  his  opinions  were  laboriously  controverted. 
A  state  founded  upon  such  a  principle,  must  be  intolerant.  Had 
no  strangers  come  among  them,  their  own  children  would  have  been 
disfranchised.  Yet  the  Puritans  adhered  to  this  principle,  and 
gave  it  up  in  practice  by  slow  and  reluctant  concessions.  This  is 
not  said  to  cast  a  reproach  upon  the  pious  founders  of  New  Eng- 
land. Far  from  it.  Those  who  retain  the  great  scriptural  doc- 
trines for  whose  sake  they  constructed  their  whole  economy,  hon- 
our their  memory  far  more  effectually  than  those  who  merely  gar- 
nish their  sepulchres.  They  were  the  people  of  God ;  they  loved 
and  honoured  the  Saviour ;  and  this  is  enough  to  preserve  them  in 
everlasting  remembrance,  and  to  shield  them  from  all  unjust  or 
unkind  aspersions.  They  were  not  fanatical  persecutors,  or  blinded 
enthusiasts,  but  sober-minded  and  devout  men.  They  allowed 
themselves,  however,  to  be  fascinated  with  the  idea  of  a  Christian 


132  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

theocracy;  which,  beautiful  as  it  is,  cannot  be  carried  out,  in  the 
present  state  of  the  world,  without  practical  injustice.  These  men, 
therefore,  good  as  they  were,  should  not  be  honoured  at  the  ex- 
pense of  truth,  nor  held  up  as  the  friends  of  religious  liberty  in 
contrast  with  the  Presbyterians,  in  order  to  cast  odium  upon  the 
latter.  The  assertion,  that  the  advocates  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  had  the  design  of  subjecting  the  Church  to 
the  State,  and  were  only  prevented  by  the  sons  of  the  Puritans, 
appears  still  more  extraordinary  when  it  is  known  that  they  unani- 
mously declared  their  rejection  of  the  doctrine  that  the  civil  ma- 
gistrates had  the  right  to  control  ecclesiastical  bodies,  or  to  perse- 
cute for  the  sake  of  religion.  It  is  certainly  a  very  strange  ex- 
pedient to  enforce  a  doctrine,  openly  and  unanimously  to  renounce 
it.  A  charge,  however,  which  is  so  obviously  unjust  does  not  merit 
even  this  brief  refutation. 

Another  assumption  equally  gratuitous  is,  that  the  overture  in 
question  had  its  origin  in  disaffection  towards  the  New  England 
portion  of  the  Synod.  Had  such  disaffection  existed,  this  was  a 
singular  way  to  manifest  it.  The  Westminster  Confession  had 
long  before  been  adopted  in  New  England ;  and  the  catechism  was 
there  taught  as  faithfully  as  in  Scotland  itself.  Even  had  the  ex- 
cepted clauses,  about  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate,  been  in- 
sisted upon,  what  was  there  in  those  articles  to  startle  men  brought 
up  under  the  Cambridge  Platform  ?  New  England  men  were  not 
to  be  excluded  by  the  adoption  of  their  own  confession,  nor  by  the 
avowal  of  their  own  principles.  There  is,  however,  no  ground  for 
this  suspicion.  The  overture  itself  does  not  contain  the  slightest, 
manifestation  of  this  sectional  feeling.  The  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle,  from  the  bosom  of  which  it  proceeded,  was  not  a  homoge- 
neous body  of  Scotch  and  Irish  members.  It  had  scarcely  a  ma- 
jority of  such  members  ;  five  were  either  originally  or  immediately 
from  New  England,  two  were  from  Wales,  and  one  from  England. 
The  overture  itself  tells  a  plain  story.  It  avows  distinctly  the 
object  aimed  at,  and  the  means  for  its  accomplishment.  It  states 
that  errors  of  various  kinds,  Arminianism,  Socinianism,  and  Deism, 
had  begun  to  prevail  even  in  the  reformed  churches.     This  was 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  133 

true,  to  some  extent,  of  Scotland,  still  more  alarmingly  true  of  the 
north  of  Ireland  ;  true  of  the  Dissenters  in  England,  who,  a  few 
years  later,  looked  askant  at  President  Davies,  because  he  came 
from  a  church  which  had  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession,  and 
are  now  applauded  as  "the  friends  of  religious  liberty"  for  so 
doing.  It  was  true  also  of  New  England,  where  the  Arminian 
declension  had  already  begun.  Is  it  wonderful,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, that  men  who  loved  the  truth  should  feel  some  anxiety; 
that  being  members  of  a  church  whose  doors  were  wide  open,  they 
should  be  desirous  to  place  some  bar  at  the  entrance  ;  to  exact  some 
pledge  that  those  who  were  admitted  to  the  ministry  would  not 
labour  in  the  vocation  of  error  ?  When  motives  so  obvious  are 
avowed  for  this  measure,  why  should  evil  motives  and  sinister  de- 
signs be  raked  up  from  the  dark  corners  of  a  suspicious  imagina- 
tion, and  gratuitously  imputed  to  its  authors? 

It  has  been  said  also  that  the  adoption  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  was  the  result  of  sectarian  bigotry  and  heartless  orthodoxy. 
It  is  very  easy  to  excite  the  prejudices  of  the  simple,  by  such  as- 
sertions. But  zeal  for  the  truth  is  surely  no  evidence  of  indiffer- 
ence for  religion.  This  unnatural  connection  does  indeed  some- 
times occur ;  and  where  these  two  things  are  united  they  produce 
a  most  offensive  form  of  human  character.  For  any  one  such  in- 
stance, however,'  the  history  of  the  church  furnishes  an  hundred  of 
the  far  more  congenial  union  of  indifference  to  the  truth  and  dis- 
regard to  religion.  The  strictest  churches  have  been  the  most 
pious,  laborious,  and  useful  churches.  And  the  strictest  age  of 
any  particular  church  has  almost  always  been  its  best  age.  Hol- 
land is  not  better  now  than  when  she  demanded  a  strict  adherence 
to  her  doctrinal  standards.  The  Socinianised  Presbyterians  of 
England  did  not  become  better  than  Calamy,  Reynolds,  and  other 
members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  when  they  rejected  all 
creeds  but  the  Bible.  The  French  Protestants  are  not  better  now 
than  when  their  noble  army  of  martyrs  and  confessors,  whose 
blood  still  calls  to  heaven  for  a  blessing  on  the  remnant  of  their 
children,  "  swore"  to  live  and  die  by  their  confession  of  faith. 
And  it  may  well  be  doubted  if  New  England  is  more  religious  at 


134  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

the  present  time  than  in  the  days  of  her  rigid  Calvinism,  when  the 
catechism  was  taught  at  every  fire-side  and  in  every  district  school. 

The  mere  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  therefore,  is  not 
in  itself  an  evidence  of  heartless  orthodoxy.  And  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  any  other  kind  that  the  advocates  of  this  measure  were 
less  zealous  in  their  religion  than  their  opponents.  It  may  be  said 
it  was  the  Scotch  and  Irish  members  who  were  in  favour  of  the 
measure,  and  the  English  members  who  opposed  it.  To  a  certain 
extent  this  is  true.  But  were  not  the  Irish  members  the  leaders  in 
the  great  revival  of  1740-1744  ?  Were  not  many  of  those  leaders 
members  of  the  obnoxious  Presbyteries  of  New  Castle  and  Done- 
gal? On  the  other  hand,  some  of  those  who  were  most  averse  to 
the  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  were  most  bitter  in  their 
opposition  to  the  revival.  These  facts  are  referred  to,  to  show  the 
injustice  of  imputing  a  mere  lifeless  orthodoxy  to  the  advocates  of 
Mr.  Thompson's  overture,  and  of  the  assumption  that  it  was  de- 
signed to  get  rid  of  the  troublesome  zeal  of  the  better  members  of 
the  Synod. 

The  design  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  overture  itself ;  it  was  to 
guard  against  the  inroads  of  error,  which  had  begun  to  prevail 
upon  every  side.  The  chief  apprehension  was  directed,  not  to- 
wards New  England,  but  towards  Ireland.  The  Synod  had  already 
rejected  one  ministerial  applicant  from  that  country,  upon  suspicion 
of  unsoundness  in  the  faith,  and  doubtful  character.  A  few  years 
later,  they  rejected  another.  And  again,  in  a  few  years,  they  cast 
out  a  third,  who  had  gained  admittance  upon  deceptive  testimonials, 
of  orthodoxy.  That  the  chief  immediate  purpose  of  this  overture 
was  to  keep  out  unsound  men  from  the  Irish  Presbyteries,  is  dis- 
tinctly avowed  by  its  author,  and  avowed  in  such  a  way,  as  to  leave 
no  doubt  of  his  sincerity.  In  the  appendix  to  his  work  on  the 
government  of  the  church  of  Christ,  published  in  1741,  he  has 
some  reflections  on  the  state  of  the  church,  which  were  written  at 
an  earlier  period.  He  there  says  :  "  When  it  pleased  our  glorious 
and  almighty  king  Jesus,  who  has  the  hearts  of  the  kings  of  the 
earth  in  his  hands,  that,  as  the  rivers  of  water  are  turned,  he  can 
turn  them  whithersoever  he  pleaseth,  to  move  the  hearts  of  our 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  135 

Synod,  with  such  a  remarkable  degree  of  unanimity  to  adopt  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  &c,  it  was  matter  of  very 
great  satisfaction  to  most  of  us,  and  to  myself  in  particular,  who 
had  been  for  some  time  before  under  no  small  fears  and  perplexi- 
ties of  mind,  lest  we  should  be  corrupted  with  the  new  schemes  of 
doctrine  which  for  some  time  had  prevailed  in  the  north  of  Ireland, 
that  being  the  part  from  whence  we  expected  to  be,  in  a  great 
measure,  supplied  with  new  hands  to  fill  our  vacancies  in  the  min- 
istry, within  the  bounds  of  our  Synod.  And  I  hope  still,  that  that 
very  step  not  only  hath  been  of  good  effect  among  us  already,  but 
also  will  still  continue  to  be  so  while  it  continues  in  force,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  end  for  which  it  was  first  intended."  *     To  under- 

*  Government  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  by  John  Thompson,  minister  of  the 
gospel,  p.  116.  As  it  has  become  common  to  speak  in  very  disparaging  terms 
of  this  gentleman,  and  as  he  seems  to  have  been  a  really  good  man,  it  is  a 
pleasure  and  honour  to  be  allowed  to  vindicate  his  memory.  This  can  best  be 
done  by  letting  the  reader  see  how  he  spoke  of  the  state  of  religion  in  our 
church,  and  of  the  duty  of  ministers,  before  the  convulsion  which  unhappily 
tore  the  church  asunder.  In  these  reflections,  after  describing  the  confusions 
and  divisions  which  had  begun  to  prevail,  he  says  to  his  brethren,  "  This 
matter  belongeth  unto  us  in  a  special  manner  —  firstly,  by  virtue  of  our  office 
and  station  ;  and  again,  because  we  have  had  a  guilty  hand  in  bringing  in  the 
evil ;  we  should,  therefore,  strive  and  endeavour  to  have  a  prime  and  leading 
hand  in  healing  and  removing  it.  In  order  to  this,  I  think  these  things  are 
undoubtedly  incumbent  on  us :  First,  that  every  one  of  us  endeavour,  with  an 
impartial  severity,  to  examine  and  look  back  upon  our  past  conduct  and  be- 
haviour, as  Christians  and  as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  calling  and  setting  our 
o;onscieno3s  to  work,  to  compare  our  past  behaviour  with  the  divine  law,  which 
is  holy,  spiritual,  just,  and  good;  weighing  ourselves  in  the  balances  of  the 
sanctuary,  with  the  same  exactness  with  which  we  expect  to  be  weighed  by 
our  holy  and  impartial  Judge,  that  we  may  be  convinced  how  far  we  have 
come  short  of  our  duty,  even  of  what  we  might  have  done,  as  Christians  and 
ministers,  for  the  glory  of  God,  our  own  and  others'  salvation ;  and  especially 
how  far  we  have  come  short  of  that  exemplary  piety,  circumspection,  and 
tenderness  of  walk,  and  spiritualness  of  converse  with  others,  which,  as  min- 
isters of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  we  should  have  studied ;  as  also,  how  far  we 
have  failed  in  degree  of  love,  care,  zeal,  and  tender  concern  for  the  souls  of 
men. 

"  2.  Another  thing  incumbent  on  us  is,  that  whatever  our  consciences  lay 
to  our  charge  in  these  matters,  we  confess  the  same  before  the  Lord,  and  be- 


136  P  R  E  SBYTERIAN    C  II  0  R  C  II 

stand  fully  the  design  of  the  adopting  act,  the  overture  which  led 
to  it  ought  to  be  read,  and  it  is  therefore  here  inserted  at  length. 

"  An  overture  humbly  offered  to  the  consideration  of  the  1  eve- 
rend  Synod ;  wherein  is  proposed  an  expedient  for  preventing  the 

wail  them  with  grief  and  sorrow  of  heart,  in  deep  humiliation,  earnestly  pray- 
ing for  pardon  ;  and  resolving  in  the  strength  of  divine  grace,  to  amend  and 
reform  all  we  find  wanting  or  amiss  in  these  or  any  other  particulars,  resolving 
still  to  grow  in  the  exercise  of  every  grace  and  the  practice  of  holiness. 

"  3.  Another  thing  incumbent  is,  that  we  labour  to  be  possessed  with  an 
earnest  care  and  concern  for  the  salvation  of  our  own  souls ;  and  particularly 
to  make  sure  of  a  work  of  grace  and  regeneration  in  our  own  hearts,  so  as 
never  to  be  at  ease  and  quiet  without  some  comfortable  evidence  of  it,  in  the 
discernible  exercise  of  grace  in  our  hearts,  together  with  the  suitable  genuine 
fruits  of  holiness  in  our  lives. 

"  4.  Let  us  earnestly  labour  to  get  our  affections  weaned  from  the  world 
and  all  sublunary  things,  and  to  set  them  on  things  above,  that  our  love  to 
God  and  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  our  concern  for  his  glory  in  the  faithful 
performance  of  duty  and  the  promotion  of  the  kingdom  of  grace,  by  the  con- 
version and  edification  of  souls,  may  so  employ  and  take  up  our  thoughts  that 
all  worldly  interests  may  appear  but  empty  trifles  in  comparison  with  these, 
things.  .  .  .  There  is  a  great  difference  between  preaching  the  gospel  that  we 
may  get  a  living,  and  to  desire  a  living  that  we  may  be  enabled  to  preach  the 
gospel.  And  happy  is  that  minister  who  is  enabled  cheerfully  and  resolutely 
to  do  the  latter,  and  truly  and  effectually  to  avoid  the  former. 

"5.  Another  thing  to  be  endeavoured  by  us,  is  to  strive  to  suit  our  gospel 
ministrations,  not  so  much  to  the  relish  and  taste  as  to  the  necessities  of  our 
people ;  and  in  order  thereunto  to  endeavour,  by  all  proper  means,  to  be 
acquainted  with  their  spiritual  state,  as  far  as  practicable  by  us  ;  that  knowing 
their  diseases  and  wants  we  may  know  how  to  suit  our  doctrine  thereunto.  — 
And  particularly  we  should  endeavour  to  bend  our  forces  and  to  use  our  best 
skill,  to  suit  the  prevalent  distemper  of  this  carnal  and  secure  age,  striving 
with  all  our  might  to  rouse  secure  sinners  and  awaken  them  out  of  their  sleep, 
and  drowsy  saints  from  their  slumber  and  carnal  security. — For  this  purpose 
we  should  not  only  assert  and  maintain  the  necessity  of  regeneration  and  con- 
verting grace,  and  of  a  righteous  and  godly  walk,  and  of  increase  and  ad- 
vancement therein,  but  also  endeavour  to  press  the  same  home  upon  their  con- 
sciences with  all  earnestness,  as  if  we  saw  them  perishing  and  would  gladly 
be  the  means  of  their  deliverance. 

"6.  It  would  also  contribute  not  a  little  to  promote  and  revive  a  work  of 
grace,  if  we  could  effectually  revive  congregational  discipline,  in  order  to  con 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  137 

ingress  and  spreading  of  dangerous  errors,  among  either  ourselves 
or  the  flocks  committed  to  our  care. 

"  Reverend  Fathers  and  Brethren : 

"  I  would  be  heartily  grieved  if  the  following  overture,  or  any 
thing  in  it,  should,  in  the  event,  prove  the  occasion  of  any  heat  or 
contention  among  us.  Sure  I  am  that  every  thing  of  this  kind  is 
far  from  my  intention,  and  I  hope  all  my  brethren  will  not  only  be 
persuaded  of  the  peaceableness  and  sincerity  of  my  intentions,  but 
also  to  judge  for  the  necessity  of  such  an  expedient,  when  they 
seriously  ponder  and  consider  these  few  particulars.  First,  that  it 
is  the  unquestionable  duty  of  every  Christian,  according  to  his 
station  and  talent,  to  maintain  and  defend  the  truths  of  the  gospel 
against  all  opposition.  Secondly,  that  this  work  or  duty  is  in  an 
especial  manner  incumbent  on  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  virtue 
of  their  oflfice.  Thirdly,  that  not  only  every  Christian  and  minis- 
ter, but  also  every  church,  as  an  organized  body  politic,  methodised 
by  order  and  government,  is  also  obliged  to  act  with  Christian  vigi- 
lance and  sagacity  in  maintaining  and  defending  gospel  truth. 
Fourthly,  that  the  parties  aforesaid  are  not  only  obliged  to  main- 
tain and  defend  the  truth  for  themselves,  but  also  to  endeavour  to 
perpetuate  and  propagate  it  unto  posterity  pure  and  uncorrupt. 
Fifthly,  as  the  light  of  nature  teaches  all  kingdoms,  common- 
wealths, cities,  &c,  even  in  time  of  peace  to  prepare  for  war,  so  a 
principle  of  spiritual  wisdom  should  direct  the  church  of  Christ  to 
fortify  itself  against  all  the  assaults  and  invasions  that  may  be 
made  upon  the  doctrine  it  professes,  according  to  the  word  of  God. 
Sixthly,  that  secret  bosom  enemies  of  the  truth,  (I  mean  those  who 
being  visible  members   of  a  church  do  not  openly  and  violently 

vince  sinners  and  make  them  ashamed  of  their  scandalous  outbreakings.  For 
I  am  afraid  that  most  of  us  are  too  lax  and  remiss  in  this  matter,  so  that  the 
highest  privileges  of  Christ's  church,  I  mean  external  privileges,  are  too  eften 
given  to  such  whose  conversation  is  very  unsuitable  unto  them." 

These  few  extracts  will  show  the  spirit  of  the  work,  and  the  manner  in 
which  "the  notorious"  Thompson  thought  and  wrote  on  these  subjects.  Such 
a  man  does  not  deserve  to  have  his  name  cast  out  as  evil. 


138  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

oppose  the  truth  professed  therein,  but  in  a  secret  covert  way  en- 
deavour to  undermine  it,)  are  as  dangerous  as  any  whatever;  and, 
therefore,  the  church  should  exercise  her  vigilance  in  a  special 
manner  against  such,  by  searching  them  out,  discovering  them,  and 
setting  a  mark  upon  them  whereby  they  may  be  known,  and  so  not 
have  it  in  their  power  to  deceive.  The  churches  of  Ephesus  and 
Smyrna  are  commended  for  this,  but  Pergamos  and  Thyatira  are 
reproved  for  the  neglect  of  it.  Seventhly,  that  we,  the  members 
of  this  Synod,  together  with  the  particular  congregations  of  pro- 
fessors under  our  care,  are  a  church  which  is  one  entire  organized 
body  or  society  of  Christians  united  together  by  order  and  govern- 
ment, according  to  the  institution  of  the  word,  and  therefore  ought 
(especially  when  apparent  dangers  call  for  it,)  to  exert  ourselves 
and  the  authority  with  which  we  are  invested,  in  vindication  and 
defence  of  the  truths  which  we  profess,  and  for  preventing  the  in- 
gress and  spreading  of  error.  Eighthly,  that  we  are  so  a  particular 
church  as  not  to  be  a  part  of  any  particular  church  in  the  world, 
with  which  we  are  united  by  the  joint  exercise  of  church  govern- 
ment, and  therefore  we  are  not  accountable  to  the  judicial  inquiry 
of  any  superior  ecclesiastical  judicature  upon  earth,  and  therefore 
if  we  do  not  exert  the  authority  inherent  in  us  for  maintaining  the 
purity  of  gospel  truth,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  any  superior  eccle- 
siastical judicature  to  call  us  in  question  for  our  neglect,  or  for  our 
errors  or  heresies  should  we  be  corrupted  with  them.  Ninthly, 
although,  I  hope,  there  are  as  yet  few  or  none  among  us  (especially 
of  the  ministers)  who  are  infected  with  any  gross  errors  or  here- 
sies in  doctrine,  yet  I  think  I  may  say  we  are  in  no  small  danger 
of  being  corrupted  in  doctrinals,  and  that  even  as  to  fundamentals, 
which  to  me  seems  evident  from  the  consideration  of  these  few  par- 
ticulars of  our  present  circumstances. 

"  First,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are  too  much  like  the  people  of 
Laish,  in  a  careless  defenceless  condition,  as  a  city  without  walls  ; 
(or  perhaps  my  unacquaintedness  with  our  records  may  cause  me  to 
mistake.)  For  as  far  as  I  know,  though  we  be  an  entire  particular 
church,  as  has  been  observed,  and  not  a  part  of  a  particular  church, 
yet  we  have  not  any  particular  system  of  doctrines,  composed  by 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  139 

ourselves,  or  others,  which  we,  by  any  judicial  act  of  our  church, 
have  adopted  to  be  the  articles  or  confession  of  our  faith,  &c.  Now 
a  church  without  a  confession,  what  is  it  like  ?  It  is  true,  as  I  take 
it,  we  all  generally  acknowledge  and  look  upon  the  Westminster 
Confession  and  Catechisms  to  be  our  confession,  or  what  we  own 
for  such  ;  but  the  most  that  can  be  said  is,  that  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  is  the  confession  of  the  faith  of  the  generality 
of  our  members,  ministers  and  people ;  but  that  it  is  our  confession, 
as  Ave  are  a  united  body  politic,  I  cannot  see,  unless,  First,  it  hath 
been  received  by  a  conjunct  act  of  the  representatives  of  our  church  ; 
I  mean  by  the  Synod,  either  before  or  since  it  hath  been  sub  forma 
synodi.  Secondly,  unless  due  care  be,  and  hath  been  taken  that 
all  intrants  into  the  ministry  among  us  have  subscribed  the  said  con- 
fession, or  by  some  equivalent  solemn  act,  coram  auctoritate  eccle- 
siastica,  testified  their  owning  it  as  the  confession  of  their  faith  ; 
which  how  far  it  is  observed  within  the  bounds  of  our  Synod,  I  am 
ignorant.  Now,  if  this  be  so,  (for  upon  this  supposition  I  speak,) 
I  think  we  are  in  a  very  defenceless  condition.  For  if  we  have  no 
confession  which  is  ours  by  synodical  act,  or  if  any  among  us  have 
not  subscribed  or  acknowledged  the  confession,  ut  supra,  then  — 
First,  there  is  no  bar  provided  to  keep  out  of  the  ministry  those  who 
are  corrupt  in  doctrinals ;  they  may  be  received  into  the  ministry 
without  renouncing  their  corrupt  doctrines.  Secondly,  those  that 
are  in  the  ministry  among  us  may  propagate  gross  errors  and  cor- 
rupt many  thereby  without  being  discovered  to  preach  any  thing 
against  the  received  truth,  because  (supposito  ut  supra)  the  truth 
was  never  publicly  received  among  us. 

"  Secondly,  another  of  our  present  circumstances  is,  that  we  are 
surrounded  by  so  many  pernicious  and  dangerous  corruptions  in 
doctrine,  and  these  grown  so  much  in  vogue  and  fashion,  even  among 
those  whose  ancestors,  at  the  beginning  of  the  reformation,  would 
have  sealed  the  now  despised  truth  with  their  blood.  When  Armi- 
nianism,  Socinianism,  Deism,  Freethinking,  &c,  do  like  a  deluge 
overflow  even  the  reformed  churches,  both  established  and  dissenting, 
to  such  a  degree,  have  we  not  reason  to  consult  our  own  safety  ? 

Turn  tua  res  agitur  paries  cum  proximus  ardet. 


140  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

"A  third  circumstance  we  are  in,  which  increaseth  our  danger  of 
infection  by  error,  is  partly  the  infancy,  and  partly  the  poverty  of  oui 
circumstances,  which  render  us  unable  to  plant  a  seminary  of  learn- 
ing among  ourselves,  and  so  to  see  to  the  education  of  our  young 
candidates  for  the  ministry,  and  therefore  we  are  under  the  necessity 
of  depending  upon  other  places  for  men  to  supply  our  vacancies  in 
the  church,  and  so  are  in  danger  of  having  our  ministry  corrupted 
by  such  as  are  leavened  with  false  doctrine  before  they  come  among 
us. 

"  Fourthly,  I  am  afraid  there  are  too  many  among  ourselves,  who, 
though  they  may  be  sound  in  the  faith  themselves,  yet  have  the 
edge  of  their  zeal  against  the  prevailing  errors  of  the  times  very 
much  blunted,  partly  by  their  being  dispirited,  and  so  by  a  kind 
of  cowardice  are  afraid,  boldly,  openly,  and  zealously  to  appear 
against  those  errors  that  show  themselves  in  the  world  under  the 
patronage  and  protection  of  so  many  persons  of  note  and  figure ; 
partly  by  a  kind  of  indifference  and  mistaken  charity,  whereby 
they  think  they  ought  to  bear  with  others,  though  differing  from 
them  in  opinion  about  points  which  are  mysterious  and  sublime, 
but  not  practical  nor  fundamental,  such  as  predestination.  Now, 
although  I  would  grant  that  the  precise  point  of  election  and  repro- 
bation be  neither  fundamental  nor  immediately  practical,  yet  take 
predestination  completely,  as  it  takes  in  the  other  disputed  points 
between  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  such  as  universal  grace,  the 
non-perseverance  of  the  saints,  foreseen  faith,  and  good  works,  &c, 
and  I  think  it  such  an  article  in  my  creed,  such  a  fundamental  of 
my  faith,  that  I  know  not  what  any  other  articles  would  avail,  that 
could  be  retained  without  it. 

"  Now  the  expedient  which  I  would  humbly  propose  you  may 
take  is  as  follows :  First,  that  our  Synod,  as  an  ecclesiastical  judi- 
cature of  Christ,  clothed  with  ministerial  authority  to  act  in  con- 
cert in  behalf  of  truth  and  opposition  to  error,  would  do  something 
of  this  kind  at  such  a  juncture,  when  error  seems  to  grow  so  fast, 
that  unless  we  be  well  fortified,  it  is  like  to  swallow  us  up.  Se- 
condly, that  in  pursuance  hereof,  the  Synod  would,  by  an  act  of 
its  own,  publicly  and  authoritatively  adopt  the  Westminster  Con- 


IN     THE     UNITED    STATES.  141 

fession  of  Faith,  Catechisms,  &c,  for  the  public  confession  of  our 
faith,  as  we  are  a  particular  organized  church.  Thirdly,  that  fui- 
ther  the  Synod  would  make  an  act  to  oblige  every  Presbytery 
within  their  bounds,  to  oblige  every  candidate  for  the  ministry,  to 
subscribe,  or  otherwise  acknowledge  coram  preshyterio,  the  said 
confession  of  theirs,  &c.  and  to  promise  not  to  preach  or  teach  con- 
trary to  it.  Fourthly,  to  oblige  every  actual  minister  coming 
among  us  to  do  the  like.  Fifthly,  to  enact,  that  if  any  minister 
within  our  bounds  shall  take  upon  him  to  teach  or  preach  any  thing 
contrary  to  any  of  the  said  articles,  unless,  first,  he  propose  the 
said  point  to  the  Presbytery  or  Synod  to  be  by  them  discussed,  he 
shall  be  censured  so  and  so.  Sixthly,  let  the  Synod  recommend  it 
to  all  their  members,  and  members  to  their  flocks,  to  entertain  the 
truth  in  love,  to  be  zealous  and  fruitful,  and  to  be  earnest  with  God 
by  prayer,  to  preserve  their  vine  from  being  spoiled  by  those  de- 
luding foxes  ;  which  if  the  Synod  shall  see  cause  to  do,  I  hope  it 
may,  through  the  divine  blessing,  prevent  in  a  great  measure,  if 
not  altogether,  our  being  deluded  with  the  damnable  errors  of  our 
times ;  but  if  not,  I  am  afraid  we  may  be  at  last  infected  with  the 
errors  which  so  much  prevail  elsewhere. 

"  I  will  only  add  one  argument  to  press  this,  viz. :  It  is  to  be 
feared  if  such  an  expedient  be  neglected,  (now  I  hope  it  is  in  our 
power)  ere  many  years  pass  over  our  heads,  those,  who  now  discern 
not  the  necessity  thereof,  may  see  it  when  it  will  be  too  late  ;  when 
perhaps  the  number  of  truth's  friends  may  be  too  few  to  carry  such 
a  point  in  the  Synod.  Thus,  brethren,  I  have  offered  to  your  con- 
sideration some  serious  thoughts,  in  a  coarse  dress.  May  it  please 
the  Master  of  assemblies  to  preside  among  us,  and  direct  and  influ- 
ence us  in  all  things,  for  his  glory,  and  the  edification  of  his  church. 
So  prays  your  unworthy  fellow  labourer  in  Christ's  vineyard."* 

The  wisdom  of  this  proposal  to  adopt  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, has  received  the  sanction  of  the  church  for  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years,  during  which  time  the  only  modifications  which  the 

*  This  overture,  though  not  inserted  in  the  minutes  of  the  Synod,  was> 
printed.     The  ahove  transcript  is  taken  from  Mr.  Hazard's  MSS. 


142  PRESBYTERIAN    CIIURCII 

adopting  act  has  received,  were  intended  to  render  it  more  explicit 
and  more  binding.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter  of  surprise,  that,  at 
first,  it  should  have  met  with  so  much  opposition,  and  that  this 
opposition  should  have  come  from  the  source  it  did.  Mr.  Andrews, 
in  a  letter,  dated  April,  1729,  six  months  before  the  adopting  act 
was  passed,  says,  "  I  think  all  the  Scotch  are  on  one  side,  and  all 
the  English  and  Welsh  on  the  other,  to  a  man."  *     This  he  gives, 

*  As  this  letter  of  Mr.  Andrews  to  Dr.  Colman  of  Boston,  dated  Philadel- 
phia, April,  7,  1729,  is  instructive  and  interesting,  it  is  here  inserted,  as  far 
as  it  is  preserved  in  Mr.  Hazard's  MSS. 

"  As  to  affairs  here,  we  are  engaged  in  the  enlargement  of  our  house,  and 
by  the  assistance  we  had  from  Boston,  I  hope  we  shall  go  on  comfortably 
with  that  work.  The  stone-work  at  the  foundation  is  laid,  and  all  the  mate- 
rials are  getting  ready.  We  are  now  likely  to  fall  into  a  great  difference 
about  subscribing  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  An  overture  for  it, 
drawn  up  by  Mr.  Thompson  of  Lewes-town,  was  offered  to  our  Synod  the 
year  before  last,  but  not  then  read  in  the  Synod.  Measures  were  taken  to 
stave  it  off,  and  I  was  in  hopes  we  should  have  heard  no  more  of  it.  But  last 
Synod  it  was  brought  again,  recommended  by  all  the  Scotch  and  Irish  mem- 
bers present,  and  being  read  among  us,  a  proposal  was  made,  prosecuted,  and 
agreed  to,  that  it  should  be  deferred  till  our  next  meeting,  for  further  consi- 
deration. The  proposal  is,  that  all  ministers  and  intrants  should  sign  it,  or  else 
be  disowned  as  members.  Now  what  shall  we  do  ?  They  will  certainly  carry 
it  by  numbers ;  our  countrymen  say  they  are  willing  to  join  in  a  vote  to  make 
it  the  confession  of  our  church,  but  to  agree  to  making  it  a  test  of  orthodoxy, 
and  term  of  ministerial  communion,  they  will  not.  I  think  all  the  Scotch  are 
on  one  side,  and  all  the  English  and  Welsh  on  the  other  to  a  man.  Neverthe- 
less I  am  not  so  determined  as  to  be  uncapable  to  receive  advice,  and  I  give 
you  this  account,  that  I  may  have  your  judgment  as  to  what  I  had  best  do  in 
the  matter.  Supposing  I  do  believe  it,  shall  I,  on  the  terms  above  mentioned, 
subscribe  or  not  ?  I  earnestly  desire  you  by  the  first  opportunity  to  send  me 
your  opinion.  Our  brethren  have  got  the  overture  with  a  preface  to  it  printed, 
and  I  intend  to  send  you  one  for  the  better  regulation  of  your  thoughts  about 
it.  Some  say  the  design  of  this  motion  is  to  spew  out  our  countrymen,  they 
being  scarcely  able  to  hold  way  with  the  other  brethren  in  all  their  discipli- 
nary and  legislative  notions.  What  truth  there  may  be  in  this  I  know  not. 
Some  deny  it,  whereas  others  say  there  is  something  in  it.  I  am  satisfied 
some  of  us  are  an  uneasiness  to  them,  and  are  thought  to  be  too  much  in  their 
way  sometimes,  so  that  I  think  it  would  be  no  trouble  to  lose  some  of  us. 
Yet  I  can't  think  this  to  be  the  thing  ultimately  designed,  whatever  smaller 
glances  there  may  be  at  it.     I  have  no  thought  that  they  have  any  desigu 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  143 

as  his  impression,  and  it  no  doubt,  in  general,  correctly  indicates 
the  dividing  line  between  the  friends  and  opposers  of  the  measure. 
The  expression,  however,  is  certainly  too  strong.  It  is  hardlj 
possible  that  the  English  and  Welsh  members  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle,  who  had  been  for  several  years  in  the  habit  of  re- 
quiring the  adoption  of  the  confession  by  their  candidates,  should 
have  opposed  the  Synod's  doing  the  same  thing.  Besides,  when 
dissatisfaction  was  manifested  on  account  of  some  expressions  in 
the  adopting  act,  these  members  were  among  the  first  to  render 
them  more  explicit.  Still,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  the  class  of 
members  to  which  Mr.  Andrews  refers,  was  at  first  opposed  to  the 
measure.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for  ?  The  only  reason 
applicable  to  them  as  a  class  that  suggests  itself  is,  that  having 
been  accustomed,  especially  those  of  them  who  came  from  New 
England,  to  act  more  as  Independents,  without  any  superior  judi- 
catory having  the  right  to  question  their  opinions,  they  felt  that 
the  proposed  act  would  be  an  infringement  of  their  liberty.  Whereas 
the  Scotch  and  Irish  members,  more  accustomed  to  Presbyte- 
rianism,  felt  no  such  apprehensions.  It  is  certain,  from  what  fol- 
lowed, that  the  opposition  did  not  arise  from  dislike  of  the  doc- 
trines taught  in  the  Westminster  Confession.  The  opposition  was 
against  all  creeds,  and  not  against  that  particular  confession.  Such 
at  least  was  the  ground  taken  by  President  Dickinson,  the  ablest 

against  me  in  particular ;  I  have  no  reason  for  it.  This  business  lies  heavy 
on  my  mind,  and  1  desire  that  we  may  be  directed  in  it,  that  we  may  not 
bring  a  scandal  on  our  profession.  Though  I  have  been  sometimes  the  instru- 
ment of  keeping  them  together,  when  they  were  like  to  fall  to  pieces,  I  have 
little  hope  of  doing  so  now.  If  it  were  not  for  the  scandal  of  a  division,  I 
should  not  be  much  against  it,  for  the  different  countrymen  seem  to  be  most 
delighted  with  each  other,  and  to  do  best  when  they  are  by  themselves.  My 
congregation  being  made  up  of  divers  nations  of  different  sentiments,  this 
brings  me  under  greater  difficulty  in  this  contested  business  than  any  other 
minister  of  our  number.  I  am  afraid  of  the  event.  However,  I  will  endea- 
vour to  do,  as  near  as  I  can,  what  I  understand  to  be  duty,  and  leave  the  issue 
to  Providence. 

"  P.  S.  Ten  days  ago  was  buried  Mr.  Malachi  Jones,  an  old  Welsh  minis- 
ter. He  was  a  good  man,  and  did  good.  He  lived  about  eleven  miles  from 
this  town." 


144  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURCII 

and  most  influential  member  of  the  Synod,  and  the  most  strenuous 
opposer  of  his  Scottish  brethren.  This  appears  from  the  follow- 
ing abstract  of  his  objections  to  Mr.  Thompson's  overture.  That 
"  a  joint  acknowledgment  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  for  our  common 
head,  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  for  our  common  standard  both  in 
faith  and  practice,  with  a  joint  agreement  in  the  same  essential  and 
necessary  articles  of  Christianity,  and  the  same  methods  of  worship 
and  discipline,  are  a  sufficient  bond  of  union  for  the  being  or  well- 
being  of  any  church  under  heaven."  That  "  we  have  already  all  the 
external  bond  of  union  that  the  Scriptures  require  of  us.  We  have, 
all  of  us,  for  aught  I  know,  one  faith,  one  Lord,  one  baptism,  and 
one  discipline.  Subscription  to  one  confession  is  indeed  required 
of  us,  but  does  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  require  this?"  That  "the 
requiring  and  enjoining  any  unscriptural  terms  of  union  or  com- 
munion is  a  direct  and  natural  means  to  procure  rents  and  divisions 
in  the  church."  That  "we  all  of  us  know  that  the  subscription 
under  debate  has  been  scrupled  by  many  godly,  learned,  and  faith- 
ful ministers  of  Christ,  that  it  has  made  horrible  divisions  and  con- 
fusions in  other  churches,  and  that  it  is  like  to  have  the  same  sad 
effects  among  ourselves."  '  That  "a  subscription  to  any  human 
composure  as  the  test  of  our  orthodoxy  is  to  make  it  the  standard 
of  our  faith,  and  thereby  to  give  it  the  honour  due  only  to  the  word 
of  God."  That  imposing  subscriptions  on  others,  is  "invading  his 
royalty  who  is  sole  king  and  lawgiver  to  his  church,  and  practising 
ourselves  what  we  so  loudly  condemn  in  others."  That  imposing 
subscription  on  others,  "  must  be  done  as  a  necessary  duty,  or  as 
a  thing  in  itself  indifferent;  not  the  former,  till  some  Scripture 
can  be  found  which  requires  subscription  to  human  composures. 
If  it  be  in  itself  indifferent,  who  gave  the  Synod  authority  to  take 
away  the  liberty  with  which  Christ  has  made  us  free?"  That  "in 
making  this  subscription  the  term  of  admitting  candidates  to  the 
ministry,"  men  may  be  kept  "out  of  Christ's  vineyard,  whom  he 
has  sent  to  labour  there,  and  qualified  for  glorious  service  in  his 
church."  * 

*  The  above  abstract  is  taken  from  Mr.  Hazard's  MSS.  The  writer  has  not 
been  able  to  procure  a  copy  either  of  Mr.  Dickinson's  Remarks  upon  the  over- 
ture, or  of  Mr.  Thompson's  reply. 


IN    THE     UNITED.  STATES..  145 

It  is  obvious  from  the  nature  of  these  objections,  that  President 
Dickinson  belonged  to  that  small  class  of  persons  who  are  opposed 
to  all  creeds  of  human  composition.  The  sense  of  the  Christian 
world  on  this  point  is  against  him,  and  it  is  not  known  that  there 
is  a  single  advocate  of  these  views  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  at 
the  present  time.  How  many  of  the  members  of  the  Synod  agreed 
with  him  in  these  opinions,  cannot  now  be  ascertained.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  his  objections  had  not  a  very  firm  hold  even  of  his  own 
mind;  for  he  joined  in  the  adoption  and  imposition  of  the  West- 
minster Confession,  the  very  year  these  remarks  were  published. 
It  matters  not  with  what  latitude  he  either  received  it  himself  or 
imposed  it  upon  others.  His  objection  was  not  to  a  long  creed,  or 
to  a  short  one,  but  to  any  creed  of  human  composition,  and  such 
is  the  Westminster  Confession  in  all  its  parts,  essential  and  non- 
essential. 

When  this  subject  was  taken  up  by  the  Synod  in  1729,*  Mr. 
Thompson's  overture  was  referred  to  a  committee,  who  brought  in 
a  report  "  which,  after  long  debate  upon  it,  was  agreed  to  in  haec 
verba  : 

"  Although  the  Synod  do  not  claim  or  pretend  to  any  authority 
of  imposing  our  faith  upon  other  men's  consciences,  but  do  profess 
our  just  dissatisfaction  with,  and  abhorrence  of,  such  impositions, 
and  do  utterly  disclaim  all  legislative  power  and  authority  in  the 
church,  being  willing  to  receive  one  another  as  Christ  has  received 
us  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  to  admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred  ordi- 
nances all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe  Christ  will  at  last 
admit  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  yet  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged 
to  take  care  that  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  be  kept  pure 
and  uncorrupt  among  us,  and  so  handed  down  to  our  posterity ; 

*  The  ministers  present  at  this  meeting  of  the  Synod,  were  Messrs.  Andrews, 
Creaghead,  Thompson,  Anderson,  Pierson,  Gelston,  Houston,  G.  Tennent,  Boyd, 
Dickinson,  Bradner,  T.  Evans,  Hutchinson,  Elmer,  Stevenson,  William  Ten- 
nent, Conn,  Orme,  Gillespie,  and  Wilson.  All  these  were  old  members  of  the 
Synod,  except  Mr.  Elmer  and  Mr.  Wilson.  The  former  was  pastor  of  Fair- 
field, Cohanzy,  and  was  from  New  England,  as  is  stated  in  a  communication 
from  L.  Q.  C.  Elmer,  Esq.  quoted  above.  The  latter  was  from  Ireland,  as 
appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  New  Castle  Presbytery. 
10 


146  PRESBfTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  do  therefore  agree  that  all  the  ministers  of  this  Synod,  or  that 
shall  hereafter  be  admitted  into  this  Synod,  shall  declare  their 
agreement  in  and  approbation  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the 
Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  West- 
minster, as  being,  in  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles,  good 
forms  of  sound  words  and  systems  of  Christian  doctrine ;  and  do 
also  adopt  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms  as  the  Confession 
of  our  faith.  And  we  do  also  agree,  that  all  Presbyteries  within 
our  bounds  shall  take  care  not  to  admit  any  candidate  for  the  min- 
istry into  the  exercise  of  the  sacred  function,  but  what  declares  his 
agreement  in  opinion  with  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles 
of  said  Confession,  either  by  subscribing  the  said  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms,  or  by  a  verbal  declaration  of  his  assent 
thereto,  as  such  candidate  or  minister  shall  think  best.  And  in 
case  any  minister  of  this  Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry, 
shall  have  any  scruple  with  respect  to  any  article  or  articles  of 
said  Confession  or  Catechisms,  he  shall,  at  the  time  of  his  making 
the  said  declaration,  declare  his  sentiments  to  the  Presbytery  or 
Synod ;  who  shall,  notwithstanding,  admit  him  to  the  exercise  of 
the  ministry  within  our  bounds,  and  to  ministerial  communion,  if 
the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  his  scruple  or  mistake  to  be 
only  about  articles  not  essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship, 
or  government.  But  if  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  such 
minister  or  candidate  erroneous  in  essential  or  necessary  articles  of 
faith,  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  declare  them  incapable  of 
communion  with  them.  And  the  Synod  solemnly  agree,  that  none 
of  us  will  traduce  or  use  any  opprobrious  terms  of  those  that  differ 
from  us  in  these  extra-essentials,  and  not  necessary  points  of  doc- 
trine, but  treat  them  with  the  same  friendship,  kindness,  and 
brotherly  love,  as  if  they  had  not  differed  from  us  in  such  sen- 
timents." 

The-  adopting  act  itself  had  reference  only  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms ;  the  same  year,  however,  "  a  motion  being 
made  to  know  the  Synod's  judgment  about  the  Directory,  they 
gave  their  sense  of  that  matter  in  the  following  words,  viz. :  The 
Synod  do  unanimously  acknowledge  and  declare  that  they  judge 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  117 

the  Directory  for  worship,  discipline,  and  government,  commonly 
annexed  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  to  be  agreeable  in  sub- 
stance to  the  word  of  God,  and  founded  thereupon,  and  therefore, 
do  earnestly  recommend  the  same  to  all  their  members,  to  be  by 
them  observed,  as  near  as  circumstances  will  allow,  and  Christian 
prudence  direct."  The  "  substance"  of  the  Directory  is  of  course 
its  Presbyterianism.  What  is  not  substantial  about  it,  is  its  nume- 
rous directions,  having  reference  in  many  cases  either  to  unimpor- 
tant, or  to  local  and  temporary  circumstances.  A  stricter  adoption 
of  the  Westminster  Directory,  in  this  country,  was  impossible.  It 
contemplated  a  very  different  state  of  things  from  that  which  then 
existed,  or  which  now  exists  among  us.  It  directs,  for  example, 
that  the  ministers  of  London  should  ordain  ministers  for  the  whole 
country,  until  Presbyteries  were  regularly  established ;  that  prayer 
be  made  for  the  queen  of  Bohemia,  (sister  of  Charles  I.,  a  great 
friend  of  the  Protestants,  and  therefore  a  great  favourite  with  the 
Puritans ;)  that  the  candidates  for  the  ministry,  before  being  taken 
upon  trial,  should  satisfy  the  Presbytery  as  to  what  degrees  they 
had  taken  in  the  University,  &c.  &c. 

Though  the  main  subject  now  under  consideration,  is  the  stand- 
ard of  doctrine  adopted  by  our  church,  reference  is  here  made  to 
the  Directory  for  two  reasons :  First,  it  has  a  natural  connexion 
with  the  adopting  act ;  the  one  relating  to  the  doctrines,  the  other 
to  the  order  of  the  church.  Secondly,  it  is  generally  united  with 
the  Confession  of  Faith  in  those  declarations  of  the  Synod  to  which 
reference  must  presently  be  made. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  Synod,  in  their  preamble,  "  utterly 
disclaim  all  legislative  power  in  the  church."  It  need  hardly  be 
remarked,  that  this  must  be  understood  in  a  manner  consistent  with 
the  passage  of  this  act.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  the  Synod, 
in  the  preamble  to  a  law,  would  disclaim  all  authority  to  make  it. 
By  legislative  power  in  the  church,  was  then  understood  the  power 
to  legislate  about  truth  and  duty,  to  make  laws  to  bind  the  con- 
science. The  disclaimer  of  such  power  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  assertion  and  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  make  rules  for  the 
government  of  the  church.     To  make  the  language  above  quoted 


148  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

include  the  denial  of  this  latter  right,  reduces  the  act  to  so  glaring 
an  absurdity,  that  no  set  of  rational  men  could  have  enacted  it. 
There  is  not,  in  all  the  records  of  our  church,  a  more  striking  ex- 
ample of  a  standing  rule,  or  law,  than  this  act.  It  was  binding  on 
all  the  members  present  or  absent;  it  required  of  them  the  adoption 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  in  the  manner  prescribed,  as  a  term  of 
communion  ;  it  bound  all  the  Presbyteries,  prescribing  a  rule  by 
which  they  were  to  regulate  themselves  in  all  their  future  licensures, 
ordinations,  and  admission  of  members.  Its  validity  as  a  law  of 
the  church,  though  proceeding  from  the  sole  authority  of  the  Synod, 
has  never  been  questioned  from  that  day  to  this.  How  can  it  then 
be  made  a  matter  of  doubt,  whether,  according  to  our  system,  Synods 
have  a  right  to  make  such  rules  ?  This  act  was  passed  unanimously, 
from  which  two  things  may  be  certainly  inferred  ;  the  one,  that 
the  disclaimer  of  all  legislative  power  was  not  understood  by  the 
Scotch  members  as  a  denial  of  the  right  of  Synod  to  make  rules 
for  the  government  of  the  church  ;  the  other,  that  the  New  England 
members  must  have  acknowledged,  this  latter  right,  or  they  would 
not  have  joined  in  exercising  it.  That  the  expression,  "  legislative 
power,"  was  always  used  in  the  sense  of  a  power  to  make  new  laws 
in  matters  of  faith  or  morals,  is  further  evident  from  the  fact  that 
all  the  old-side  writers  at  the  time  of  the  schism  uniformly  disclaim 
"  all  legislative  power  in  the  church,"  though  they  insisted  so  stre- 
nuously upon  the  binding  character  of  the  acts  of  Synod.*  The 
more  extended  examination  of  the  opinions  of  the  two  parties  then 

*  This  restricted  use  of  the  phrase  in  question  has  not  been  retained  by 
ecclesiastical  writers.  Dr.  Hill,  in  his  Institutes,  constantly  speaks  of  the 
judicial,  executive,  and  legislative  powers  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  And  the  power  to  make  rules,  or  binding  enactments,  is 
certainly,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  words,  a  legislative  power.  The  restric- 
tion in  the  nature  of  the  objects  with  regard  to  which  it  can  be  legitimately 
exercised,  is  not  expressed  by  the  word  legislative,  because  a  rule  binding  on  a 
community  and  enforced  by  certain  sanctions  is  a  law,  whether  it  relates  to 
matter  of  duty  or  of  government.  Whatever  it  may  be  called,  the  power  to 
make  rules  which  the  members  and  inferior  judicatories  were  bound  to  obey, 
was  not  denied  by  either  party,  and  was  exercised  without  hesitation  by  the 
one  as  well  as  by  the  other. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  149 

in  the  church,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  belongs,  however,  to  the 
next  period  of  our  history. 

There  are  two  questions  of  no  small  importance  in  relation  to 
this  adopting  act  which  must  be  considered.  The  first  is,  what  is 
its  meaning;  ?  What  were  the  terms  of  ministerial  communion  which 
it  designed  to  establish  ?  The  second  is,  what  are  the  terms  of 
ministerial  communion,  as  far  as  they  relate  to  doctrine,  in  our 
church  ?  These  questions  are  very  distinct  from  each  other.  For 
this  act  may  have  fixed  one  condition,  and  the  Synod  the  very  next 
year  have  prescribed  a  different. 

What  then  is  the  meaning  of  this  act  ?  Did  the  Synod  intend 
by  the  words  "essential  and  necessary  articles,"  articles  essential 
to  Christianity  ?  or  articles,  in  their  estimation,  essential  to  the 
system  of  doctrines  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  ?  If 
the  former,  they  intended  that  every  man,  otherwise  qualified,  who 
held  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  might  be  admitted  to 
the  ministry  in  our  church.  If  the  latter,  they  intended  that  no 
man  who  was  not  a  Calvinist,  should  be  thus  admitted.  Apart  from 
the  language  of  the  act  itself,  there  are  three  sources  of  proof  as 
to  what  was  the  intention  of  its  authors ;  the  history  of  the  act ; 
the  subsequent  declarations  of  the  Synod  as  to  their  own  meaning  ; 
and  the  testimony  of  cotemporary  writers. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  language  of  the  act  leaves  the  in- 
tention of  its  authors  a  matter  of  doubt.  When  they  say  that  they 
adopt  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  as  the 
confession  of  their  faith,  their  language  admits  of  but  one  interpre- 
tation. This  was  the  very  form  in  which  the  subscription  was  made 
in  the  strict  Presbytery  of  New  Castle.  To  make  this  mean  that 
they  adopted  only  so  much  of  the  Confession  as  is  essential  to  the 
gospel,  would  be  to  suppose  a  use  of  language  such  as  never  before 
was  made,  at  least  by  honest  men.  If  a  man  says  he  adopts  the 
thirty-nine  articles  of  the  church  of  England  as  the  articles  of  his 
faith  ;  is  he  ever  understood  to  mean  that  he  adopts  those  portions 
ot  them  merely  which  are  essential  to  the  gospel  ?  Or,  if  another 
says,  he  adopts  the  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  can  he  honestly 
mean  that  he  adopts  so  much  as  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Augs- 


150  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

burg  Confession  ?  Such  a  use  of  language  would  be  inconsistent 
with  the  least  confidence  in  the  intercourse  of  life.  It  is  not  the 
meaning  of  the  terms,  and  cannot  honestly  be  made  their  meaning. 
Again,  when  the  Synod  say  that  every  candidate  must  declare  "  his 
agreement  in  opinion  with  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles 
of  the  said  confession,"  there  is  but  one  meaning  that  can  be  fairly 
put  upon  their  language.  The  essential  parts  of  a  confession  are 
those  parts  which  are  essential  to  its  peculiar  character.  No  man 
receives  all  the  essential  articles  of  a  popish  creed,  who  receives  no 
more  than  is  consistent  with  Protestantism.  All  such  subscriptions 
are  mockery  and  falsehood.  If  the  Synod  intended  by  the  essential 
articles  of  the  Confession,  the  essential  articles  of  the  gospel,  why 
mention  the  Confession  at  all  ?  The  Presbyteries,  surely,  could 
pick  out  the  necessary  doctrines  of  the  gospel  from  the  Bible,  as 
easily  as  from  the  Confession.  The  interpretation,  therefore,  which 
would  make  the  Synod  mean  by  the  expressions  just  quoted,  that 
they  adopted,  and  required  others  to  adopt,  those  articles  merely 
of  the  Confession  which  are  essential  to  the  gospel,  is  inconsistent 
with  all  just  and  honest  use  of  language.  Thus  far  then  this  act 
admits  of  but  one  interpretation  consistent  with  candour  and  fair 
dealing  on  the  part  of  its  authors. 

What  follows  is  more  ambiguous.  It  is  said  that  a  candidate,  at 
the  time  of  his  adopting  the  Confession,  may  state  his  scruples 
with  regard  to  any  article  or  articles,  and  that  the  Presbytery  shall, 
notwithstanding,  admit  him  if  they  judge  that  his  scruples  relate 
to  "  articles  not  essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or 
government."  Articles  not  essential  in  doctrine  might  well,  in  any 
other  context,  be  understood  to  mean  articles  not  essential  to  the 
gospel.  But  as  the  woi*ship  here  spoken  of  is  the  Presbyterian 
mode  of  worship,  and  the  government  intended  is  Presbyterian 
government,  so  the  doctrine  referred  to  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  It  was  not  the  intention  of  the  Synod  to  ex- 
clude those  only  who  denied  every  form  of  church  government,  but 
those  also  who  rejected  any  essential  feature  of  Presbyterianism. 
In  like  manner,  they  intended  to  reject  all  who  denied  any  essen- 
tial feature  of  the  system  of  doctrine  which  they  had  adopted.     It 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  151 

is  not  intended  that  this  is  the  necessary  meaning  of  the  words, 
taken  by  themselves.  But  it  is  a  natural  interpretation,  expressing 
a  sense  which  the  words  will  readily  admit.  And  if  it  is  the  only 
interpretation  which  will  save  the  act  from  the  charge  of  direct 
contradiction,  it  must  be  assumed  to  be  the  true  one.  In  the  pre- 
ceding clauses  the  Synod  had  declared  that  they  adopted  the  West- 
minster Confession  as  the  confession  of  their  faith,  and  that  every 
new  member  must,  in  like  manner,  adopt  it,  in  all  its  essential  and 
necessary  articles.  Did  they  then  immediately  declare  that  he 
might  reject  these  articles,  no  matter  how  essential  a  part  of  the 
Confession  they  might  be,  provided  they  were  not  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  Christianity  ?  If  the  sense  of  the  former  clauses  is 
clear,  it  must  determine  the  interpretation  of  the  latter. 

No  impartial  judge  could  hesitate  to  decide  that  this  was  the 
real  meaning  of  the  Synod,  who  took  into  view  the  history  of  the 
act  and  the  character  of  the  men  who  adopted  it.  It  has  already 
been  shown  that  the  act  was  introduced  to  guard  against  Armini- 
anism,  as  well  as  Socinianism.  This  was  its  design.  Its  language, 
therefore,  must  be  interpreted  in  reference  to  this  design  ;  espe- 
cially as  it  is  known  that  those  who  had  this  object  in  view  were 
perfectly  satisfied  with  it.  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  Mr.  Thompson, 
who  had  specified  the  doctrine  of  election  as  one  which  he  would 
not  venture  to  call  fundamental,  yet  as  one  the  denial  of  which 
ought  not  to  be  allowed,  would  have  been  contented  with  the  act, 
had  it  made  provision  for  the  admission  of  ministers  who  not  only 
denied  that  doctrine,  but  any  and  all  others  not  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  gospel  ?  Such  an  interpretation  of  the  act  would  place 
its  authors  in  a  most  extraordinary  light.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  advocates  of  Mr.  Thompson's  overture  were  not  thwarted ; 
they  were  not  voted  down  by  their  more  liberal  brethren,  and 
forced  to  submit  to  a  measure  to  which  they  were  opposed.  On 
the  contrary,  they  had  the  power  in  their  own  hands.  Mr.  An- 
drews says  he  had  no  doubt  of  their  ability  to  carry  just  what  they 
wished.  Yet  they  were  satisfied  with  this  act,  and  joined  in  prais- 
ing God  when  it  was  passed.  It  must,  therefore,  be  understood  in 
a  manner  consistent  with  the  avowed  object  of  its  introduction. 


152  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

It  is  very  evident,  indeed,  that  the  act  was  a  compromise.  Both 
parties  were  very  desirous  to  avoid  a  schism ;  yet  both  were  anx- 
ious that  their  own  views  should  prevail.  Their  only  expedient 
was  to  find  some  common  ground  on  which  they  could  stand.  Mr. 
Dickinson  had  avowed  his  wish  to  establish  the  "  essential  and  ne- 
cessary doctrines  of  Christianity"  as  the  condition  of  ministerial 
communion.  Mr.  Thompson  wished  the  explicit  adoption  of  the 
Westminster  Confession,  to  be  that  condition.  The  common  ground 
on  which  they  met  was  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  that 
Confession.  To  make  this  mean  exactly  what  Mr.  Dickinson  had 
proposed,  is  to  present  Mr.  Thompson  in  a  ridiculous  position ;  and 
President  Dickinson  in  one  still  less  to  be  envied.  When  the 
Synod  came  to  explain  what  they  meant  by  the  necessary  articles 
of  the  Confession,  they  made  them  include  so  much  that  Mr. 
Thompson  had  nothing  to  wish  for. 

This  is  one  hypothesis  for  accounting  for  the  acknowledged  am- 
biguity of  this  act,  and  supposes  that  both  parties  understood  it  in 
the  same  way.  Another,  and  perhaps  more  probable  one  is,  that 
in  the  mutual  anxiety  to  have  the  act  express  their  peculiar  views, 
they  at  last  got  it  into  a  shape  in  which  each  could  adopt  it,  as 
being  substantially  what  each  desired.  However  this  may  be,  it 
is  perfectly  clear,  from  subsequent  events,  that  the  Synod  as  such, 
never  intended  the  act  to  fix  as  the  condition  of  ministerial  com- 
munion, the  acknowledgment  of  the  necessary  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, whatever  may  have  been  the  wishes  of  some  few  of  its 
members.* 

*  How  far  President  Dickinson  adhered  to  the  views  expressed  in  his  objec- 
tions to  Mr.  Thompson's  overture,  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  There  is  a  pamphlet 
extant,  published  in  1735,  entitled  "  Remarks  on  a  Letter  to  a  friend  in  the 
country,  containing  the  substance  of  a  sermon  preached  in  Philadelphia  in  the 
congregation  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hemphill,"  ascribed,  no  doubt  correctly,  to  Pre- 
sident Dickinson.  In  this  pamphlet  he  says,  Christian  communion  "  should 
extend  to  all  that  we  charitably  suppose  to  be  real  Christians."  "  And  as  to 
ministerial  communion,  we  should  admit  all  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry 
among  us,  that  we  suppose  qualified  for  the  work,  according  to  the  instruc- 
tions which  Christ  has  given  us  in  the  gospel,  and  capable  of  doing  service  in 
the  Church  of  Christ  in  that  important  character,  how  different  eoever  in  opu> 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  153 

The  first  document  explanatory  of  the  intentions  of  the  Synod 
in  this  measure,  is  found  on  the  very  same  page  with  the  act  itself. 
In  the  morning  the  Synod  had  resolved  that  they  would  adopt  the 
Confession  of  Faith ;  in  the  afternoon  they  carried  their  resolution 
into  effect,  and  the  result  is  thus  recorded  :  "  All  the  ministers  of 
the  Synod  now  present  except  one,  who  declared  himself  not  pre- 
pared,* viz. :  Messrs.  Jedediah  Andrews,  Thomas  Creaghead,  John 
Thompson,  James  Anderson,  John  Pierson,  Samuel  Gelston,  Joseph 
Houston,  Gilbert  Tennent,  Adam  Boyd,  Jonathan  Dickinson,  John 
Bradner,  Alexander  Hucheson,  Thomas  Evans,  Hugh  Stevenson, 
"William  Tennent,  Hugh  Conn,  George  Gillespie,  and  John  Wilson ; 
after  proposing  all  the  scruples  that  any  of  them  had  to  make 
against  any  articles  and  expressions  in  the  Confession  of  Faith, 

ion  from  us."  This  differs  materially  from  what  he  had  said  in  his  remarks 
on  Mr.  Thompson's  overture.  There  he  demanded  nothing  more  than  agree- 
ment in  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  Christianity.  Here,  this  is 
what  in  so  many  words  he  makes  necessary  for  Christian  communion,  saying, 
"  we  can't  admit  those  to  communion  in  sealing  ordinances,  whose  errors  we 
suppose  inconsistent  with  the  grace  and  favour  of  God."  From  this  he  ex- 
pressly distinguishes  ministerial  communion,  demanding  for  that  all  that  was 
necessary,  in  our  judgment,  to  qualify  a  man  for  the  sacred  office.  "  To  admit 
others,"  he  says,  "  were  deliberately  to  send  poison  into  Christ's  household, 
instead  of  the  portion  of  meat  which  he  has  provided."  Mr.  Thompson  could 
have  said  all  this,  though  he  would  doubtless  have  applied  it  very  differently. 
On  another  page  the  writer  says,  "  If  a  man  be,  in  the  society's  opinion,  quali- 
fied for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  like  to  serve  the  interests  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  they  can  with  a  good  conscience  admit  him  to  the  exercise  of  the 
ministry  with  them,  notwithstanding  lesser  differences  of  opinion  in  extra-essen- 
tial points.  But  then  on  the  other  hand,  if  he  embrace  such  errors,  as,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  society,  unqualify  him  for  a  faithful  discharge  of  that  impor- 
tant trust,  they  cannot  admit  him  to  the  cure  of  souls,  without  unfaithfulness 
to  God  and  their  own  consciences."  Such  is  the  view  of  this  subject  given  in 
this  pamphlet,  which  in  the  copy  which  belonged  to  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  is 
stated  to  be  from  the  pen  of  President  Dickinson.  That  the  writer  considered 
his  own  views,  as  here  given,  to  be  in  accordance  with  those  expressed  in  the 
adopting  act,  is  evident  from  his  giving  that  act  as  an  appendix,  "  to  convince 
the  reader,"  as  he  says,  "  that  we  govern  ourselves  according  to  the  principles 
here  asserted  and  pleaded  for." 

*  This  was  the  Kev.  Mr.  Elmer,  who  subsequently  acceded. 


154  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at 
Westminster,  have  unanimously  agreed  in  the  solution  of  those 
scruples,  and  in  declaring  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms  to  be 
the  confession  of  their  faith,  excepting  only  some  clauses  in  the 
twentieth  and  twenty-third  chapters,  concerning  which  clauses  the 
Synod  do  unanimously  declare  that  they  do  not  receive  those  arti- 
cles in  any  such  sense  as  to  suppose  the  civil  magistrate  hath  a 
controlling  power  over  Synods,  with  respect  to  the  exercise  of  their 
ministerial  authority,  or  power  to  persecute  any  for  their  religion, 
or  in  any  sense  contrary  to  the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne 
of  Great  Britain.  The  Synod  observing  that  unanimity,  peace, 
and  unity  which  appeared  in  all  their  consultations  and  determina- 
tions in  the  affair  of  the  Confession,  did  unanimously  agree  in 
giving  thanks  to  God  in  solemn  prayer  and  praise."*  What  grat- 
ulations  would  there  be  in  the  Church  were  there  now  the  same 
unanimity,  peace,  and  unity  among  her  ministers  !  This  then  was 
what  these  fathers  meant  by  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
They  adopted  all  of  it,  except  certain  clauses  in  a  certain  sense, 
and  as  these  clauses  are  no  longer  in  the  Confession,  there  is  not 
an  "  article  or  expression"  in  that  formula  to  which  these  men  did 
not  assent.  Such  was  the  latitudinarianism  of  those  days  !  And 
it  was  in  this  sense  and  to  this  extent,  that  they  required  all  new 
members  to  adopt  the  same  Confession.  That  this  is  true,  admits 
of  proof  that  can  neither  be  gainsaid  or  resisted. 

Unfortunately,  the  adopting  act  had  been  printed  and  circulated 
among  the  churches  without  the  minute  just  quoted,  which  might 
have  served  to  explain  its  meaning.  The  question  immediately 
arose,  what  do  the  Synod  mean  by  essential  and  necessary  articles  ? 
May  the  new  members  object  to  any  and  all  articles  not  essential 
to  Christianity?  This  ambiguity  in  the  act  excited  immediate  dis- 
satisfaction, and  the  Synod  were  called  upon  to  say  explicitly  how 
these  expressions  were  to  be  understood.  All  this  appears  from 
the  following  record  in  the  minutes  for  1730.  "  Wliereas  some  per- 
sons have  been  dissatisfied  with  the  manner  of  wording  our  last 
year's  agreement  about  the  Confession,  &c. ;  supposing  some  expres- 
*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  12. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  155 

sions  not  sufficiently  obligatory  upon  intrants ;  overtured,  that  the 
Synod  do  now  declare  that  they  understand  those  clauses  that 
respect  the  admission  of  intrants  in  such  a  sense,  as  to  oblige  them 
to  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  and  Catechisms,  at  their  admis- 
sion, in  the  same  manner  and  as  fully  as  the  members  of  the  Synod 
that  were  then  present.  Which  overture  was  unanimously  agreed 
to  by  the  Synod."*  The  design  of  this  declaration  was  to  state 
explicitly  the  meaning  of  the  adopting  act,  to  let  the  churches  know 
what  articles  of  the  Confession  the  candidates  for  admission  might 
object  against.  The  Synod  say  that  they  intended,  by  the  clauses 
in  question,  to  bind  the  new  members  to  adopt  the  Confession  as 
fully  as  they  themselves  had  done ;  that  is,  to  adopt  the  whole  of 
it,  except  certain  clauses  in  the  twentieth  and  twenty-third  chap- 
ters. Here  then  is  an  authentic  and  official  explanation  of  the  act 
in  question  ;  proceeding  from  its  authors,  and  of  precisely  the  same 
authority  as  the  act  itself.  Cases  analogous  to  this  frequently 
occur  in  civil  governments.  When  an  ambiguity  is  found  to  exist 
in  an  act  of  Congress,  that  body  passes  an  explanatory  act,  declar- 
ing in  what  sense  the  doubtful  expressions  are  to  be  taken.  Who, 
after  such  explanation,  ever  ventures  to  assert  that  the  interpreta- 
tion given  by  Congress  of  their  own  act,  is  not  the  true  interpreta- 
tion ?  No  candid  man,  therefore,  in  the  face  of  this  unanimous 
declaration  of  the  Synod  that  they  intended  one  thing,  can  assert 
that  they  meant  the  opposite.  The  case  is  the  stronger  on  account 
of  the  unanimity  with  which  this  explanation  was  given ;  and 
because  the  composition  of  the  Synod  this  year  was,  in  the  main, 
what  it  was  the  year  before.  What  difference  existed  was  much 
more  favourable  to  a  lax  than  to  a  strict  interpretation  of  the  act 
of  1729. f     There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  the  adopting 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  16.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  dissatisfaction 
which  the  above  declaration  was  intended  to  allay,  referred  solely  to  the  latter 
part  of  the  adopting  act  which  relates  to  the  admission  of  new  members. 
Against  the  former  part  no  objection  seems  to  have  been  made.  This  proves 
that  the  interpretation  of  that  portion  of  the  act  given  above,  is  the  one  which 
it  received  at  the  time  of  its  first  publication. 

t  The  members  who  were  present  in  1729,  but  absent  in  1730,  when  thia 
explanatory  declaration  was  passed,  were  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Bradner,  Steven- 


156  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

act,  as  understood  and  intended  by  its  authors,  bound  every  new 
member  to  receive  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  in  all 
their  parts,  except  certain  specified  clauses  in  chapters  twentieth 
and  twenty-third.  Whether  this  was  right  or  wrong,  liberal  or 
illiberal,  it  is  what  the  Synod  unanimously  declared  they  intended. 
This  explanation,  explicit  as  it  is,  did  not  put  an  end  to  the  dis- 
satisfaction. This,  no  doubt,  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  original 
act  continued  to  circulate  unaccompanied  by  either  the  preceding 
explanation,  or  the  minute  of  the  afternoon  session  of  September 
19,  1729.  New  complaints  were,  therefore,  made  to  the  Synod, 
and  a  new  demand  for  a  public  avowal  of  their  meaning.  This  led, 
in  1736,  to  a  declaration  which  seems,  at  least  for  the  time,  to  have 
produced  general  satisfaction.  In  the  minutes  for  that  year  it  is 
recorded  that,  "  an  overture  of  the  committee,  upon  the  supplica- 
tion of  the  people  of  Paxton  and  Derry,  was  brought  in  and  is  as 
followeth  :  That  the  Synod  do  declare  that  inasmuch  as  we  under- 
stand that  many  persons  of  our  persuasion,  both  more  lately  and 
formerly,  have  been  offended  with  some  expressions  or  distinctions 
in  the  first  or  preliminary  act  of  our  Synod  for  adopting  the  West- 
minster Confession  and  Catechisms,  &c. ;  that  in  order  to  remove 
said  offence  and  all  jealousies  that  have  arisen  or  may  arise  in  any 
of  our  people's  minds  on  occasion  of  said  distinctions  and  expres- 
sions, the  Synod  doth  declare  that  the  Synod  have  adopted  and 
still  do  adhere  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms,  and 
Directory,  without  the  least  variation  or  alteration,  and  without 
any  regard  to  said  distinctions.  And  we  do  further  declare  this 
was  our  meaning  and  true  intent  in  our  first  adopting  of  the  said 
Confession,  as  may  particularly  appear  by  our  adopting  act,  which 
is  as  followeth :    "  All   the   ministers  of  the  Synod  now  present, 

son,  Conn,  Orme,  Gillespie,  and  Wilson.  Mr.  Dickinson  is  the  only  one  of 
these  who  it  can  be  presumed  would  have  objected ;  and  even  he  had  adopted 
the  Confession  as  fully  as  any  of  his  brethren.  Mr.  Orme  was  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  all  the  others  were  Scotch  or  Irish  members. 
In  place  of  these  absentees  we  find  the  names  of  Messrs.  David  Evans,  E.  Pem- 
berton,  Joseph  Morgan,  Ebenezer  Gould;  all,  it  is  believed,  Welsh  or  English. 
The  Synod  of  1730,  therefore,  had  not  the  advantage  of  that  of  172!)  in  tho 
number  of  strictly  disposed  members. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  157 

(which  were  eighteen  in  number,)  except  one  who  declared  himself 
not  prepared,  after  proposing  all  the  scruples  that  any  of  them  had 
to  make  against  any  articles  and  expressions  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of 
Divines  at  Westminster,  have  unanimously  agreed  in  the  solution 
of  those  scruples,  and  in  declaring  the  said  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms to  be  the  confession  of  their  faith,  except  only  some  clauses 
in  the  twentieth  and  twenty-third  chapters,  concerning  which  clauses 
the  Synod  do  unanimously  declare  that  they  do  not  receive  those 
articles  in  any  such  sense  as  to  suppose  the  civil  magistrate  hath  a 
controlling  power  over  Synods  with  respect  to  the  exercise  of  their 
ministerial  authority,  or  power  to  persecute  any  for  their  religion, 
or  in  any  sense  contrary  to  the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne 
of  Great  Britain.'  And  we  do  hope  and  desire,  that  this  our  Sy nod- 
ical declaration  and  explanation  may  satisfy  all  our  people  as  to  our 
firm  attachment  to  our  good  old  received  doctrines  contained  in  the 
said  Confession,  without  the  least  variation  or  alteration,  and  that 
they  will  lay  aside  their  jealousies,  that  have  been  entertained 
through  occasion  of  the  above  hinted  expressions  and  declarations 
as  groundless.     This  overture  approved  nemine  eontradicente.' '* 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  47.  The  ministers  present  at  this  meeting  of  Synod, 
were  Messrs.  Thomas  Creaghead,  J.  Andrews,  J.  Thompson,  J.  Anderson, 
Richard  Treat,  J.  Houston,  Robert  Cathcart,  A.  Boyd,  Robert  Cross,  Robert 
Jamison,  Ebenezer  Gould,  H.  Stevenson,  H.  Carlisle,  James  Martin,  William 
Bertram,  Alexander  Creaghead,  John  Paul,  William  Tennent,  Sen.,  William 
Tennent,  Jun.,  and  David  Evans.  If  to  these  be  added  those  members  who, 
though  absent  this  year,  were  present  when  the  explanatory  declaration  of 
1730  was  passed,  viz. :  Messrs.  John  Pierson,  Samuel  Gelston,  Gilbert  Ten- 
nent, Alexander  Hucheson,  Joseph  Morgan,  Daniel  Elmer,  Thomas  Evans, 
and  Ebenezer  Pemberton,  we  shall  have  a  formidable  list  of  witnesses  as  to 
what  was  the  true  meaning  and  intent  of  the  adopting  act.  We  have  the 
solemn  official  declaration  of  all  these  gentlemen  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
they  understood  their  own  acts  and  declarations.  A  man  must  have  a  good 
deal  of  courage  who  would  contradict  all  these  men,  when  the  matter  in  debate 
is  what  they  themselves  intended.  Of  those  members  of  the  Synod,  who  wero 
absent,  both  in  1730  and  1736,  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Gillespie,  Conn,  Bradner. 
and  Wilson  had  united  in  adopting  all  the  articles  and  expressions  in  the 
Confession  except  the  specified  clauses.  Of  the  few  remaining  members,  the 
names  of  H.  Hook  and  William  Steward  are  subscribed  to  the  strict  and  frho- 


158  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

There  is  no  inconsistency  between  this  declaration  and  those  of 
1729.  This  is,  indeed,  in  some  respects  more  explicit,  but  it  is  not 
more  comprehensive.  The  Synod  adopted  no  more  of  the  Confes- 
sion in  1736,  than  they  did  in  1729.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that 
they  call  the  overture  adopted  on  the  morning  of  September  19th, 
the  preliminary  act  about  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
the  minute  of  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  their  adopting  act  itself. 
In  the  former  they  determined  that  all  their  members  shall  declare 
first,  their  "  agreement  with  the  Confession,  &c,  in  all  the  essential 
and  necessary  articles;"  and  secondly,  that  they  "adopt  the  said 
Confession  and  Catechisms  as  the  confession  of  their  faith."  When 
they  came  to  carry  this  resolution  into  effect,  they  did  actually 
adopt  the  whole  of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms,  "  excepting 
only"  the  specified  clauses  in  chapters  twentieth  and  twenty-third. 
The  act  of  1736  does  the  same  and  no  more.  The  preliminary  act 
merely  declared  the  purpose  of  the  Synod  to  exact  the  adoption  of 
the  Confession  in  all  its  essential  and  necessary  articles  ;  the  Synod 
not  then  knowing  what  exceptions  they  might  choose  to  make,  but 
subsequently  they  made  no  exception  beyond  what  has  just  been 
stated.  This,  however,  was  not  generally  known  to  the  churches, 
and  hence  the  anxiety  to  ascertain  what  the  Synod  received  and 
what  they  rejected.  To  satisfy  this  anxiety,  the  Synod  tell  the 
churches  what  they  had  done  ;  that  they  had  adopted  the  whole  of 
the  Confession,  rejecting  no  part  of  it,  but  simply  repudiating  a 
certain  specified  interpretation  of  a  few  clauses.  As  far  as  our 
doctrinal  standards,  therefore,  are  concerned,  this  declaration  of 
1736  is  nothing  more  than  an  announcement  and  repetition  in  full 
of  what  the  Synod  had  done  in  1729,  by  piecemeal,  partly  in  the 
morning  and  partly  in  the  afternoon.* 

rough  formula  of  subscription  adopted  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  in 
1730.  The  other  absentees  were  Messrs.  Pumry,  Webb,  Hubbell,  Horton,  John 
Cross,  Chalker,  Blair,  Wales,  Glasgow,  and  Nutnian ;  the  record  of  their  adop- 
tion of  the  Westminster  Confession,  &c.  as  the  confession  of  their  faith,  is 
almost  in  every  case  found  on  the  minutes  of  Synod.  That  body,  therefore, 
cannot  sustain  its  claims  to  any  extraordinary  liberality  as  it  regards  points  of 
doctrine.     It  evidently  belonged  to  the  "  most  straitest  sect  of  our  religion." 

*  Dr.  Hill,  (Great  Schism,  No.  4,)  says,  in  reference  to  this  declaration.  "A 
more  fumbling  ex  parte  statement  can  hardly  any  where  be  met  wi*h      They 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  159 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  ground  of  the  dissatisfaction  with 
the  act  of  1729,  was  the  exception  taken  to  the  clauses  respecting 
the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate,  and  that  the  Synod  was  at  last 
forced  to  restore  those  articles,  and  withdraw  their  objection. 
Neither  of  these  assertions  is  correct.  The  dissatisfaction  arose 
from  the  "printed  paper"  which  contained  merely  the  preliminary 
act,  which  says  not  one  word  about  the  clauses  in  question.  The 
whole  difficulty  arose  from  the  distinction  between  essential  and 
unessential  articles,  which  the  people  did  not  understand,  or  did 
not  know  how  much  was  rejected  as  unessential.  Accordingly  this 
declaration  is  directed  solely  to  that  point.  That  the  objection  to 
the  clauses  in  chapters  twentieth  and  twenty-third  were  not  with- 
drawn, is  clear  from  the  repetition  of  the  minute  which  contains 
those  objections,  and  which  is  here  repeated  to  remove  the  dissatis- 
faction ;  a  very  clear  proof  that  the  difficulty  did  not  relate  to  that 
point,  and  that  the  Synod  had  nothing  to  retract. 

As  these  are  official  documents,  emanating  from  the  same  au- 
thority as  the  adopting  act  itself,  and  expressly  designed  to  declare 
its  meaning,  they  must  be  regarded  as  decisive,  and  the  question 
as  to  the  true  intention  of  that  act  might  here  be  dismissed.  Could 
it  even  be  shown  that  individuals,  or  particular  judicatories,  took  a 
different  view  of  the  subject,  it  would  prove  nothing,  in  opposition 
to  the  unanimous  and  repeated  declarations  of  the  Synod.  Still 
as  this  is  a  subject  of  great  historical  interest  to  the  members  of 
our  Church,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  gather  what  additional  light  we 
can  from  the  records  of  the  several  Presbyteries,  and  the  writings 
of  contemporaries.     How  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  regarded 

(viz. :  the  adopting  act  and  this  declaration)  are  absolutely  irreconcilable  and 
contradictory  to  each  other."  But  why  ex  parte  ?  It  was  made  by  the  whole 
Synod,  without  one  dissenting  voice  ;  it  contains  nothing,  as  far  as  the  Con- 
fession is  concerned,  that  is  not  implied  in  the  explanatory  declaration  of 
1730.  And  as  to  this  minute  contradicting  the  adopting  act,  it  merely  contra- 
dicts Dr.  Hill's  interpretation  of  that  act.  It  is  certainly  more  probable  that 
Dr.  Hill  should  be  mistaken,  than  that  all  these  gentlemen  should  be  guilty  of 
direct  and  intentional  falsehood,  declaring  that  they  meant  one  thing,  when 
they  really  meant  another ;  especially  as  they  appeal  to  the  records  in  pj  oof  of 
the  e  srrectness  of  their  assertions. 


160  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

this  matter  may  be  inferred  from  the  two  following  extracts  from 
their  minutes.  The  first  is  dated  September  2,  1730,  and  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Whereas  divers  persons,  belonging  to  several  of  our  con- 
gregations, have  been  stumbled  and  offended  with  a  certain  minute 
of  the  proceedings  of  our  last  Synod,  contained  in  a  printed  letter, 
because  of  some  ambiguous  words  or  expressions  contained  therein, 
being  willing  to  remove,  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  all  causes  and  occa- 
sions of  jealousies  and  offences  in  relation  to  that  affair,  and  openly 
before  God  and  the  world  to  testify  that  we  all  with  one  accord 
firmly  adhere  to  the  same  sound  doctrine,  which  we  and  our  fathers 
were  trained  up  in  ;  we,  the  ministers  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  do,  by  this  our  act  of  sub- 
scribing our  names  to  these  presents,  solemnly  declare  and  testify, 
that  we  own  and  acknowledge  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
Catechisms  to  be  the  confession  of  ovy  faith,  being  in  all  things 
agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  judge  and 
discern,  taking  them  in  the  true,  genuine,  and  obvious  sense  of  the 
words.  Signed,  Adam  Boyd,  Joseph  Houston,  H.  Hook,  Hugh 
Stevenson,  James  Anderson,  William  Steward,  Thomas  Creaghead, 
George  Gillespie,  John  Thompson,  Samuel  Gelston,  Thomas  Evans, 
Alexander  Hucheson."  * 

*  Dr.  Hill,  after  giving  the  above  document  with  the  names,  says  :  "  Thes? 
were  all  foreigners  from  Scotland  or  Ireland,  who,  with  their  forefathers,  had 
been  trained  up  in  swallowing  the  whole  Confession,  without  change  or  dimi- 
nution, in  all  its  extent,  embracing  what  is  said  respecting  the  power  of  the 
civil  magistrate,  contained  in  the  twentieth  and  twenty-third  chapters,  &c, 
as  agreeable  in  all  things  to  the  word  of  God.  Although  the  Synod  has  made 
exception  here,  yet  they  would  go  the  whole."  Great  Schism,  No.  4.  This  is 
one  of  the  many  cases  in  which  the  venerable  Dr.'s  zeal  has  proved  too  strong 
for  his  discretion.  These  gentlemen  were  not  "  all  foreigners  from  Scotland 
or  Ireland."  A  good  many  of  them  were  foreigners  from  New  England  and 
Wales.  Of  Mr.  Boyd,  for  example,  it  is  said  on  the  minutes,  p.  84:  "The 
testimonials  of  Mr.  Adam  Boyd,  lately  come  from  New  England,  were  read 
and  approved."  And  of  Mr.  Houston,  on  the  same  page  it  is  said,  "Mr.  Jo 
seph  Houston,  who  lately  came  from  New  England,  his  license,  together  with 
his  other  testimonials,  were  read  and  approved."  Of  Mr.  Thomas  Evans,  it 
is  said,  "  having  showed  to  this  Presbytery  satisfjung  credentials  from  the 
Presbytery  of  Carmarthenshire  in  South  Wales,"  &c.  p.  24.     Mr.  Samuel  Gel- 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  161 

It  is  objected  to  these  gentlemen,  that  they  here  adopt  the  whole 
Confession  in  the  obvious  sense  of  the  words,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  clauses  about  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate.  This 
is  regarded  as  conclusive  evidence  that  they  were  in  favour  of  sub- 
jecting the  Church  to  the  power  of  the  State.  They  must  have 
been  strange  men  if  this  were  the  case.  Most  of  them  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod,  in  1729,  solemnly  declared  that  they  rejected 
and  denied  any  controlling  power  in  the  civil  magistrate  over  the 
Church,  and  all  authority  to  persecute  any  one  on  account  of  his 
religion.  In  1730,  they  declare  that  no  new  member  should  be 
obliged  to  profess  any  such  doctrine.  And  in  1736,  they  repeat 
their  own  denial  of  it.  Do  they  then  here,  in  opposition  to  all 
their  other  professions,  assert  it  ?  It  is  hardly  to  be  believed.  It 
is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Synod  did  not  reject  the  clauses  spe- 
cified in  chapters  twentieth  and  twenty-third,  absolutely,  but  "  in 
any  such  sense"  as  taught  the  subjection  of  the  Church  to  the 
power  of  the  State  ;  "a  sense  which,  for  my  part,"  says  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Blair,  "  I  believe  the  reverend  composers  never  intended 
in  them."  If  then  the  signers  of  the  above  declaration  were  of 
the  same  opinion  as  Mr.  Blair  on  this  point,  there  is  no  inconsist- 
ency between  this  document  and  those  to  which  they  assented  as 
members  of  Synod. 

ston  was  received  by  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  as  early  as  1715  or  1716, 
from  Long  Island,  where  he  first  settled  as  pastor  of  the  church  at  South 
Hampton.  Of  Mr.  Thomas  Creaghead  it  is  said,  in  the  minutes  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Castle,  p.  77  :  "  This  day  several  papers  were  produced  by  the 
Rev.  Thomas  Creaghead,  who  lately  came  from  New  England,"  &c.  This 
form  of  expression  is  commonly  used  to  indicate  the  origin  of  the  members, 
as  on  p.  162,  it  is  said  of  Mr.  Wilson  that  he  was  late  from  Ireland.  Still  it 
is  probable  from  his  name,  that  Mr.  Creaghead  was  of  Irish  origin.  With 
regard  to  Mr.  Boyd,  there  is  another  record,  showing  what  kind  of  Puritans, 
at  times,  entered  our  Church  in  its  early  days.  On  p.  128,  it  is  stated  that 
"  Mr.  Boyd  proposed  an  overture  to  the  Presbytery  that  one  of  their  members 
should  be  appointed  to  compose  a  short  treatise  on  the  divine  right  of  Pres- 
byterian church  government."  This  overture  was,  at  the  next  meeting,  re- 
ferred to  the  Synod,  where  the  Scotch  and  Irish  members  let  it  sleep.  Mr. 
Boyd's  name  also  appears  along  with  those  of  Robert  Cross  and  John  Thomp- 
son, attached  to  the  protest  against  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  in  1741. 
11 


1G2  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

The  second  record  in  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle  relating  to  this  subject,  occurs  under  the  date  of  December 
30,  1730,  and  is  to  the  following  effect :  "  A  representation  of 
some  scrupling  our  way  of  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith  ;  upon 
which  the  Presbytery  produced  both  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  and 
Presbytery  relating  thereto,  which  seemed  to  give  full  satisfaction 
to  the  representors. "  There  is  no  record  on  the  minutes  of  the 
Synod  relating  to  this  subject  except  the  adopting  act  itself,  the 
account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  members  then  present  received 
the  Confession,  and  the  explanatory  declaration  of  September 
1730,  interpreting  the  clauses  relating  to  new  members.  If,  there- 
fore, "the  representors"  were  fully  satisfied  with  the  Synod,  they 
must  have  been  satisfied  with  the  above  declarations,  which  leave 
the  exceptions  taken  to  the  twentieth  and  twenty-third  chapters 
in  full  force.  This  proves  two  things,  first,  that  those  exceptions 
were  not  the  ground  of  dissatisfaction ;  and  secondly,  that  these 
persons  must  have  understood  the  Synod's  declarations  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  are  represented  above. 

The  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  from  1717  to 
1733  are  lost.  No  information,  therefore,  relating  to  this  subject 
can  be  gathered  from  the  records  still  extant,  except  what  may  be 
inferred  from  the  manner  in  which  that  Presbytery  admitted  new 
members.  For  example,  it  is  said,  Mr.  Samuel  Blair,  "  having 
given  his  assent  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chisms as  the  confession  of  his  faith,  was  licensed  to  preach  the 
gospel."  p.  2.  Charles  Tennent  "adopted  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  according  to  order  of  Synod." 
p.  19.  David  Cowell  was  ordained,  "  after  he  had  adopted  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  as  the  confession 
of  his  faith."*  p.  28.      Mr.  McHenry  was  ordained,   "adopting 

*  The  ordination  of  Mr.  Cowell,  was  by  a  committee  consisting  of  Messrs. 
Andrews,  D.  Evans,  Wales,  and  Treat,  with  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Pierson,  and 
Morgan,  correspondents.  It  is  believed  that  not  one  of  those  gentlemen  was 
either  Scotch  or  Irish,  unless  it  was  Mr.  Treat,  and  yet  we  find  them  employ- 
ing the  strict  and  comprehensive  mode  of  adopting  the  Confession  stated  in 
the  text. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  163 

the  Confession  of  Faith,  &c,  according  to  the  order  of  Synod." 
p.  35.  Samuel  Evans  "  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  Catechisms  and  Directory,  according  to  the  adopting  act  of 
Synod."  p.  97.  All  these  different  forms  are  used  as  equivalent; 
the  candidate  adopted  the  Confession  as  the  confession  of  his  faith, 
according  to  the  order  of  Synod,  and  according  to  the  adopting  act 
of  Synod.  The  first  is  the  most  common,  and  the  others  merely 
state  that  the  thing  was  done  in  obedience  to  the  order,  or  the  act 
of  the  superior  judicatory. 

The  Presbytery  of  Donegal  was  formed  in  1732.  Their  method 
of  subscribing  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  as  follows :  "  I,  having 
seriously  read  and  perused  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms, do  declare  in  the  sight  of  God  and  all  here  present,  that  I 
do  believe,  and  am  fully  persuaded,  that  so  far  as  I  can  discern  and 
understand  said  Confession  and  Catechisms,  they  are,  in  all  things, 
agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  taking  them  in  the  plain  and  ob- 
vious meaning  of  the  words ;  and  accordingly  I  do  acknowledge 
them  as  the  confession  of  my  faith,  and  do  promise,  through  divine 
assistance,  for  ever  to  adhere  thereto.  I  also  believe  the  Directory 
for  the  exercise  of  worship,  discipline,  and  government,  commonly 
annexed  to  said  Confession,  to  be  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God, 
and  I  do  promise  to  conform  myself  thereto  in  my  practice,  as  far 
as  in  emergent  circumstances  I  can  attain  unto."  This  is  certainly 
strict  enough.* 

*  Dr.  Hill,  after  quoting  the  above  formula,  adds,  "  these  are  bold  strides 
for  new  comers  and  a  new  Presbytery,  and  not  very  courteous  and  respect- 
ful to  the  Synod,  the  supreme  judicatory  of  that  day."  The  members  of  this 
Presbytery  were  Mr.  Anderson,  received  as  a  member  of  Synod  in  1710 ;  Mr. 
John  Thompson  received  in  1717;  Mr.  Robert  Orr  received  in  1716;  Mr 
Adam  Boyd  received  in  1724 ;  and  Mr.  William  Bertram  received  in  1732. 
So  that  the  last  named  was  the  only  "  new  comer"  in  the  Presbytery ;  the 
first  three  were  among  the  oldest  members  of  the  Synod ;  and  Mr.  Boyd  had 
been  a  member  eight  years.  The  Doctor  proceeds:  "the  Synod  had,  in  their 
qualified  manner,  adopted  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  but  had  said  nothing  about  the  Directory,  and  Form 
of  Government,  and  Discipline."  This  is  a  mistake,  as  the  Synod  in  1729 
said  very  nearly  the  same  of  the  Directory  that  this  Presbytery  says  of  it. 
"  But  now  these  new  comers,  as  Andrews  calls  them,  (Mr.  Andrews  does  not 


164  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

The  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  was  formed  in  1738.  In 
1741  they  were  excluded  from  the  Synod.  They  immediately  con- 
vened as  a  Presbytery,  and  were  joined  by  several  members  of  the 
Synod  as  correspondents,  and  determined  to  divide  themselves  into 
two  Presbyteries.  Before  separating  they  adopted  the  following 
minute :  "  Forasmuch  as  the  ministers  who  have  protested  against 
our  being  of  their  communion,  do  at  least  insinuate  false  reflections 
against  us,  endeavouring  to  make  people  suspect  that  we  are  reced- 
ing from  Presbyterian  principles,  for  the  satisfaction  of  such  Chris- 
tian people  as  may  be  stumbled  by  such  false  aspersions,  we  think 
it  fit  unanimously  to  declare,  that  we  adhere  as  closely  and  fully  to 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Catechisms,  and  Direc- 
tory, as  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  in  any  of  their  public  acts." 
The  ministers  present  were  Gilbert  Tennent,  William  Tennent, 
Jun.,  Eleazar  Wales,  and  John  Rowland,  members  of  the  New 
Brunswick  Presbytery,  and  William  Tennent,  Sen.,  Charles  Ten- 
nent, Richard  Treat,  Samuel  Blair,  David  Alexander,  and  Alex- 
ander Creaghead,  correspondents.  This  declaration  of  an  adher- 
ence to  the  Confession  and  Directory,  as  close  as  had  ever  been 
professed  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  it  must  be  remembered, 
was  made  in  1741,  after  the  adopting  act  of  1729 ;  after  the  act 
of  1730  declaring,  that  new  members  must  receive  the  whole  Con- 
fession except  the  clauses  specified  in  chapters  twentieth  and  twenty- 
third  ;  and  after  the  thorough-going  declaration  of  1736,  in  which 
the  Synod  say  they  adhere  "to  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  Catechisms,  and  Directory,  without  the  least  variation  or 

say  a  word  about  this  Presbytery,)  and  this  newly-formed  Presbytery,  go  the 
whole  length  of  adopting  the  form  of  government  and  discipline  of  the  kirk 
of  Scotland,  in  which  they  had  been  trained  up  in  toto.  They  even  surpass 
what  the  New  Castle  Presbytery  had  done.  We  see  from  this  that  bigoted 
reformers  are  bold  fellows,  they  do  not  stick  at  trifles,  &c."  If  the  reader 
agrees  with  Dr.  Hill,  and  we  see  not  how  he  can  help  it,  that  the  above  decla- 
ration about  the  Directory  is  equivalent  to  adopting  "the  form  of  government 
and  discipline  of  the  kirk  of  Scotland  in  toto,"  he  must  admit  that  the  Synod 
adopted  that  form  in  1729  if  never  before ;  and  that  it  was  adopted  by  the  new- 
side  Synod  as  completely  as  by  the  old-side  one.  The  proof  of  this  will  fol- 
low within  a  few  pages. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  165 

alteration,  and  without  any  regard  to  the  distinctions,"  in  the 
adopting  act,  between  essential  and  unessential  articles.  Such  was 
the  foundation-stone  of  the  new  Synod. 

The  records  of  the  original  Presbytery  of  Long  Island  have,  it 
is  understood,  perished.  Those  now  in  existence  commence  with 
the  reorganization  of  that  Presbytery  in  1747.  It  is  believed  alsoj 
that  the  early  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  East  Jersey  are  lost ; 
at  least  the  writer  has  not  been  able  to  hear  of  them  or  to  gain 
access  to  them.  All,  therefore,  that  can  be  known  of  the  views 
and  practice  of  those  bodies  in  reference  to  this  subject,  must  be 
gathered  from  the  records  of  the  Synod.  It  has  already  been 
stated,  that  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Pierson,  and  Bradner,  adopted  the 
whole  of  the  Confession,  except  the  often-specified  clauses  in  1729, 
and  that  Messrs.  Pierson  and  Pemberton  were  present  in  1730, 
when  the  Synod  enacted  that  all  new  members  should  be  required 
to  adopt  the  Confession  as  strictly  as  they  themselves  had  done. 
These  Presbyteries,  as  well  as  the  others,  were  in  the  habit  of  re- 
porting their  new  members  to  the  Synod  and  stating  that  they  had 
adopted  the  Confession.  Thus,  in  1735,  it  is  reported  that  Isaac 
Chalker,  Simon  Horton,  and  Samuel  Blair,  ordained  by  the  Pres 
bytery  of  East  Jersey,  had  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  Catechisms,  &c,  according  to  the  adopting  act  of  Synod. 
And  in  1738,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  as  the  united  Presby- 
teries of  Long  Island  and  East  Jersey  were  then  called,  reported 
that  Aaron  Burr  and  Walter  Wilmot  were  ordained,  and  adopted 
the  Westminster  Confession,  &c,  according  to  the  order  of  this 
Synod.  The  form  in  which  these  reports  are  made  is  the  same  in 
all  the  Presbyteries ;  the  new  members  of  Donegal  and  New  Castle 
and  East  Jersey,  are  often  included  in  the  same  minute,  and  the 
statement  of  their  assent  to  the  Confession  is  made  in  the  same 
terms.  Thus  it  appears  that  as  the  Synod  was  unanimous  in  their 
declarations  in  relation  to  this  subject,  so  the  Presbyteries  were  in 
the  practical  interpretation  which  they  gave  to  those  declarations. 
As  far  as  the  writer  is  aware,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence 
that  any  of  the  Presbyteries  ever  admitted,  during  the  period 
under  review,  any  minister  who  dissented  from  any  of  the  doctri- 
nal articles  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 


166  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

Besides  this  documentary  evidence  of  an  official  character,  as  to 
the  original  design  and  import  of  the  adopting  act,  there  is  the  tes- 
timony of  cotemporary  writers  which  remains  to  be  considered. 
This,  though  of  far  inferior  authority,  is  still  not  without  interest 
and  importance.  A  passage  has  already  been  quoted  from  Mr. 
Thompson's  Reflections,  in  which  he  expresses  his  gratitude  to  God 
for  the  passage  of  that  act  in  such  a  manner  as  shows  his  entire 
satisfaction  with  it.  Yet  such  were  the  known  opinions  of  the 
man,  in  relation  to  the  subject,  and  such  his  avowed  design  in  pro- 
posing the  measure,  that  it  is  perfectly  incredible  that  he  should 
have  been  satisfied  with  the  act  in  question,  unless  it  was  intended 
in  the  way  in  which  the  Synod  subsequently  explained  it.  The 
testimony  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  however,  is  much  more  full 
and  explicit.  Soon  after  the  schism  in  1741,  the  Rev.  Alexander 
Creaghead,  one  of  the  ejected  members,  renounced  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  and  published  his  reasons  for  so  doing.  These  rea- 
sons were  reviewed  and  answered  by  Mr.  Blair.  Mr.  Creaghead's 
first  reason  for  his  secession  was,  that  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith  had  never  been  adopted  "  in  this  province,  either  presby- 
terially  or  synodically  as  the  confession  of  our  faith  in  every  article 
thereof,  even  to  speak  of  no  more  at  present  but  of  the  thirty-three 
articles  therein  contained."  "  By  every  article  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,"  says  Mr.  Blair,  "  he  means  every  chapter  of  it,  and 
therefore  calls  the  thirty-three  chapters  the  thirty-three  articles ; 
whereas  every  chapter  almost,  contains  several  articles,  all  relating 
to  some  one  general  head.  Now,  whether  Mr.  Creaghead  could 
suppose  so  or  not,  that  neither  Synod  or  Presbytery  in  this  province 
did  ever  receive  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  in  every  chap- 
ter of  it,  the  thing  itself  is  manifestly  false  in  fact  both  ways. 
There  never  was  any  scruple,  that  ever  I  heard  of,  made  by  any 
member  of  the  Synod  about  any  part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
but  only  about  some  particular  clauses  in  the  twentieth  and  twenty- 
third  chapters,  and  those  clauses  were  excepted  against  in  the 
Synod's  act  receiving  the  Confession  of  Faith,  only  in  such  a  sense, 
which,  for  my  part,  I  believe  the  reverend  composers  never  intended 
in   them,  but  which   might   notwithstanding   be  readily  put  upon 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  167 

them.  Mr.  Creaghead,  to  prove  what  he  supposes,  dwells  much  on 
what  is  called  the  Synod's  preliminary  act  about  the  Confession  of 
Faith  made  in  1729.  But  let  that  act  be  thought  as  insufficient  as 
it  can  possibly  admit,  and  granting  that  it  was  not  sufficient  for  the 
securing  of  a  sound  orthodox  ministry;  yet  that  is  no  argument 
but  the  Confession  of  Faith  has  been  sufficiently  received  by  other 
acts.  And  so  in  fact  it  has  been,  by  the  Synod's  act  for  the  pur- 
pose, I  think  in  the  year  1730,  [1729,]  wherein  the  Synod  declares, 
"all  the  ministers  of  the  Synod  now  present,  &c.  &c."*  "Here 
you  see,"  continues  Mr.  Blair,  "  the  Synod  have  received  the  whole 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  as  the 
confession  of  their  faith,  save  only  some  clauses  in  the  twentieth 
and  twenty-third  chapters,  which  clauses  it  seems  the  Synod  sup- 
posed might  be  understood  as  maintaining  that  magistrates  have  a 
controlling  power  over  Synods  in  the  exercise  of  their  ministerial 
authority  ;  a  power  to  persecute  persons  for  their  religion  ;  and  that 
the  popish  Pretender  had  a  right  to  the  throne  of  Great  Britain. 
And,  now,  if  the  declaration  against  receiving  those  clauses  in  such 
senses  as  these,  be  a  good  objection  against  the  Synod,  let  any 
sober  Protestant,  especially  Presbyterian,  judge."  This  power  of 
the  civil  magistrate,  he  adds,  "  is  a  great  part  of  that  unlawful 
supremacy  and  headship  over  the  Church,  which  the  Presbyterian 
Church  has  always  protested  against,  and  yet  Mr.  Creaghead  finds 
fault  with  the  Synod  for  this."f  Nothing  can  be  more  explicit 
than  this  testimony,  and  nothing  can  be  more  unexceptionable. 
Mr.  Blair  is  not  a  witness  whose  mouth  can  be  stopped  with  the 
charge  of  heartless  orthodoxy.  He  was  one  of  the  most  zealous 
promoters  of  the  great  revival,  and  one  of  Mr.  Tennent's  most 
prominent  supporters.     In  further  refutation  of  Mr.  Creaghead's 

*  Mr.  Blair  quotes  at  length  the  minute  adopted  on  the  afternoon  of  Sep- 
tember 19,  1729,  which  has  been  already  twice  given  above. 

t  Animadversions  on  the  Reasons  of  Mr.  Alexander  Creaghead's  receding 
from  the  judicatures  of  this  church,  together  with  its  constitution.  By  Samuel 
Blair,  Philadelphia,  p.  8-11.  This  pamphlet  is  contained  in  No.  788  of  the 
bound  pamphlets  of  the  Philadelphia  Library.  The  copy  is  unfortunately 
defective,  ending  abruptly  at  the  forty-eighth  page.     It  is  without  date. 


1G8  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

unreasonable  charge,  Mr.  Blair  says  :  u  Moreover,  in  the  year  1736, 
the  Synod  declare  that  they  adopted  and  do  still  adhere  to  the 
Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms  and  Directory,  without  the 
least  variation  or  alteration,  and  without  any  regard  to  the  distinc- 
tions in  the  aforementioned  preliminary  act.  It  seems  some  people 
were  jealous  from  the  first  preliminary  act  (without  knowing  or  con- 
sidering that  the  Synod  had  afterwards  agreed  in  the  solutions  of 
all  scruples  which  any  of  them  had  concerning  any  articles  or 
expressions  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  so  unanimously  adopted 
and  received  it,  in  a  fixed  determinate  manner  as  before  related) 
that  the  Synod  were  about  to  vary  and  alter  the  Confession  and 
Directory,  and  to  set  up  new  principles  of  religion  and  government 
contrary  thereto.  In  answer  to  which  jealousies,  the  Synod  declares 
that  they  adhere  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms  and 
Directory,  without  the  least  variation  or  alteration,  which  view  of 
the  case  takes  away  all  Mr.  Creaghead's  pretence  for  calling  this 
declaration  notoriously  false.  Mr.  Creaghead  may  readily  remem- 
ber, that  when  our  two  Presbyteries  were  met  together,  June  3, 
1741,  after  the  separation  of  the  Synod,  we  declared  and  recorded 
that  we  adhered  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Cate- 
chisms, and  Directory,  as  closely  and  as  fully  as  ever  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  in  any  of  their  public  acts  or  agreements  about  them.* 
He  may  likewise  remember,  that  the  first  time  our  Presbytery  met 
by  itself,  after  the  separation,  at  White  Clay  Creek,  we  clid  unani- 
mously agree  and  declare  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Catechisms  to  be  the  confession  of  our  faith,  without  any  con- 
sideration of,  or  relation  to  any  former  act  of  the  Synod  what- 
ever."f 

Another  of  Mr.  Creaghead's  reasons,  says  Mr.  Blair,  is,  "  '  That 
neither   the  government  nor  discipline   of  the  Church  is  rightly 

*  For  language  far  loss  strong  respecting  the  Directory,  the  Presbytery  i  if 
Donegal  were  charged  with  adopting  the  form  of  government  and  discipline 
of  the  kirk  of  Scotland  in  toto.  Does  language  lose  its  meaning  when  uttered 
by  a  member  of  the  "  new-side"  Synod  ?  Or  did  they  too  adopt  the  Scotfish 
system  in  toto  ? 

f  Animadversions,  &c,  p.  13. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  169 

administered  by  us.'  And  he  proceeds  to  give  his  instances  of 
such  mismanagement ;  and  the  first  is,  '  that  when  we  were  first 
thrust  out  by  a  part  of  the  Synod  we  did  not  begin  to  consider 
something  of  our  principles  and  of  some  plan  that  we  would  adhere 
td  in  the  government  of  the  church.'  This  is  really  an  odd  story 
too  !  As  if  we  had  our  principles  to  seek  at  that  time  of  day ;  as 
if  we  had  to  begin  to  consider  of  them  what  they  should  be.  When 
we  were  unjustly  and  arbitrarily  thrust  out  by  a  part  of  the  Synod, 
we  had  no  new  set  of  principles,  nor  any  new  plan  of  government 
then  to  devise.  We  were  settled  in  these  things  long  before  that ; 
we  then  declared  adherence  still  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  Catechisms  and  Directory,  as  before  related ;  we  declared 
it  to  be  our  duty  in  those  circumstances,  as  ministers  and  rulers  in 
God's  house,  to  carry  on  the  government  of  the  church,  according 
to  the  rules  of  Presbyterian  government."*  "As  to  the  scheme 
and  pattern  laid  down  in  the  Westminster  Directory  for  the  wor- 
ship of  God  and  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  church, 
we  deny  no  part  of  it,  as  may  be  seen  at  large  in  our  late  decla- 
ration."f 

Another  cotemporary  expounder  of  the  adopting  act  is,  as  is  sup- 
posed, the  Rev.  John  Blair.  The  Rev.  Samuel  Harker,  having  been 
for  several  years  under  process  by  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery 
for  certain  Arminian  opinions,  was  finally  suspended  by  the  Synod 
of  New  York  and  Philadelphia ;  whereupon  he  published  an  appeal 
to  the  Christian  world.  One  of  his  grounds  of  complaint  as  to  the 
sentence  against  him,  was  that  it  was  "  in  violation  of  an  act  of 
Synod,  A.  D.  1729,"  which  he  calls,  says  the  writer,  "one  of  the 
great  articles  of  their  union,  and  which  he  thought  sufficiently  se- 
cured the  rights  of  private  judgment,  wherein  it  is  provided  that  a 
minister  or  candidate  shall  be  admitted,  notwithstanding  his  scruples 
respecting  any  article  or  articles  the  Synod  shall  judge  not  essen- 
tial in  doctrine,  worship  and  government.  But  in  order  to  improve 
this  to  his  purpose,  he  takes  the  words  '  essential'  and  '  necessary'  in 
a  sense  in  which  it  is  plain  the  Synod  never  intended  they  should  be 
taken.  He  would  have  them  signify  what  is  essential  to  communion 
*  Animadversions,  &c,  p.  29.  f  Ibid.  p.  30. 


170  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

with  Jesus  Christ,  or  to  the  being  of  grace  in  the  heart ;  and  ac- 
cordingly supposes  that  no  error  can  be  essential  which  is  not  of 
such  malignity  as  to  exclude  the  advocate  or  maintainer  of  it  from 
communion  with  Jesus  Christ.  But  the  Synod  say  essential  in  doc- 
trine, worship,  or  government,  i.  e.  essential  to  the  system  of  doc- 
trine contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  considered 
as  a  system,  and  to  the  mode  of  worship  and  plan  of  government 
contained  in  our  Directory.  Now  what  unprejudiced  man  of  sense 
is  there  who  will  not  readily  acknowledge  that  a  point  may  be  essen- 
tial to  a  system  of  doctrine  as  such,  to  our  mode  of  worship,  and  to 
Presbyterian  government,  which  is  not  essential  to  a  state  of 
grace?"*  "That,  therefore,  is  an  essential  error  in  the  Synod's 
sense,  which  is  of  such  malignity  as  to  subvert  or  greatly  injure  the 
system  of  doctrine  and  mode  of  worship  and  government,  contained 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory."! 

All  that  has  hitherto  been  said  refers  to  the  former  of  the  two 
questions  proposed  for  consideration : — What  was  the  meaning  of 
the  adopting  act,  as  originally  intended  ?  It  has  been  shown 
that  it  never  was  designed  to  fix  the  necessary  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  as  the  term  of  ministerial  communion.  It  has  been  shown 
that  this  is  not  necessarily,  nor  even,  when  the  whole  document  is 
taken  together,  naturally  the  meaning  of  the  words  ;  that  this  inter- 
pretation is  contradicted  by  the  mode  in  which  the  Synod  them- 
selves, in  obedience  to  their  own  resolution,  adopted  the  Westminster 
Confession  and  Catechisms  ;  by  the  official  and  authoritative  decla- 
ration of  1730,  in  which  the  Synod  state  that  it  was  their  intention, 
in  the  aforesaid  act,  to  require  every  new  member  to  receive  the 

*  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  vindicated.  In  reply  to  Mr. 
Samuel  Harker's  appeal  to  the  Christian  world.  By  a  member  of  the  Synod, 
Philadelphia,  1764.  See  p.  10.  In  a  copy  of  this  pamphlet,  which  belonged 
to  the  father  of  the  late  Dr.  Wilson  of  Philadelphia,  the  writer  is  said  to  have 
been  the  Rev.  John  Blair. 

f  Ibid.  p.  11.  This  interpretation  of  the  act  is  of  course  not  official,  and  is 
balow  that  given  by  the  Synod  itself  in  1730,  which  allowed  of  no  disseut  ex- 
cept from  the  clauses  so  often  referred  to.  Mr.  Blair's  interpretation  is  the 
most  liberal  for  which  there  is  any  sanction  in  the  declarations  or  practice  of 
the  church. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  171 

whole  of  the  Confession,  except  the  clauses  relating  to  the  power 
of  the  civil  magistrates  in  matters  of  religion.  This  interpretation 
is  still  more  explicitly  contradicted  by  the  official  declaration  of 
1736,  in  which  the  Synod  affirm  that  they  received  the  Confession, 
&c.  without  the  least  regard  to  the  distinction  between  essential  and 
unessential  articles,  and  that  this  was  their  meaning  in  their  own 
adopting  act  of  1729.  It  is  contradicted  also  by  the  action  of  the 
Presbyteries,  who,  in  obedience  to  the  order  of  the  Synod,  adopted 
the  Confession  of  Faith.  This,  in  no  instance  upon  record  was 
done  by  any  Presbytery,  or  by  any  new  member,  in  a  way  to  limit 
the  assent  to  the  necessary  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  And  finally, 
the  interpretation  in  question  is  contradicted  by  the  explicit  testi- 
mony of  cotemporary  writers. 

The  second  question  proposed  was,  What  is,  and  ever  has  been, 
the  condition  of  ministerial  communion  in  our  Church,  as  it  relates 
to  points  of  doctrine  ?  This,  as  before  remarked,  is  a  very  distinct 
question  from  the  one  already  considered.  It  may  be  admitted, 
though  it  is  distinctly  denied,  that  the  act  of  1729  was  intended  to 
require  of  new  members  nothing  more  than  assent  to  the  essential 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  yet  the  doctrinal  standard  of  the  Church 
might  be  something  very  different  and  far  higher.  Those  who  are 
enamoured  with  what  they  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  that  act,  forget- 
ful of  their  low  opinion  of  the  power  of  Synods,  seem  to  regard  it  as 
unalterable.  They  speak  as  though  the  Synod  of  1729  had  author- 
ity not  only  over  inferior  judicatories,  but  over  all  succeeding 
Synods.  This  is  certainly  a  strange  assumption.  Had  the  Synod 
of  1729  made  the  reception  of  the  apostles'  creed  the  condition  of 
ministerial  communion,  that  of  1730  had  as  good  a  right  to  require 
assent  to  every  proposition  in  Calvin's  Institutes  and  Commentaries. 
Let  the  act  of  1729  mean  what  it  may,  what  does  it  prove  as  to  the 
doctrinal  standard  of  our  Church,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
said  act  has  never  been  modified  or  repealed  ?  What  prerogative 
had  the  Synod  of  1729,  which  was  not  possessed  by  those  of  1730 
and  1736  ?  If,  therefore,  the  original  act  was  ever  so  iatitudinarian, 
it  was  repealed  by  the  act  of  1730,  which  required  all  new  member? 
to  receive,  as  the  Synod  itself  had  done,  the  whole  Confession  of 


1Y2  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

Faith  and  Catechisms,  a  few  specified  clauses  excepted.  Where  is 
there  any  repeal  of  this  latter  act  ?  Where  is  there  any  official 
explanation  lowering  its  demands  ?  None  such  is  to  be  found  on 
the  records  of  the  Church,  at  least  until  the  formation  of  the 
General  Assembly.  The  act  of  1736  re-affirmed  the  same  standard 
with  even  still  greater  emphasis  ;  greater  plainness  was  unattainable. 
It  remains  now  to  be  shown  from  subsequent  official  declarations, 
and  from  the  administration  of  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  that 
the  standard  thus  fixed  was  unaltered,  from  1730  to  1788,  and  that 
at  no  period  of  our  history  and  in  no  section  of  the  Church  has 
assent  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel  been  made  the  con- 
dition of  ministerial  communion. 

The  period  from  1741  to  1758,  during  which  the  Church  was 
divided,  might  perhaps  be  omitted  in  a  review,  the  design  of  which 
is  to  ascertain  the  doctrinal  standard  adopted  by  the  whole  Church. 
The  opinions,  however,  of  the  separate  portions  of  the  Church, 
during  this  period,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  are  a  matter  of  too 
much  interest  to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
raise  the  question,  which  of  the  two  Synods  was  the  proper  repre- 
sentative of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  though  there  can  be  no 
doubt  how  it  should  be  answered.  However  irregular  or  unjust 
the  exclusion  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  in  1741  may  have 
been,  their  rejection  did  not  destroy  the  character  of  the  Synod. 
That  Presbytery  and  their  early  associates  were  a  small  portion  of 
the  whole  body.  Those  who  subsequently  joined  them,  as  for  ex- 
ample the  large  Presbytery  of  New  York,  continued  for  several 
years  after  the  separation,  to  meet  with  the  old  Synod,  and  to  re- 
cognize its  character.  They  finally  peaceably  withdrew,  and  with 
the  excluded  members  formed  a  new  Synod. 

It  will  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  old  Synod,  after  the  schism, 
continued  to  adhere  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  or  that  they 
regarded  the  adopting  act  in  the  light  in  which  it  had  previously 
been  viewed.  The  separation  took  place  at  the  meeting  of  Synod 
in  1741.  After  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  had  withdrawn,  an 
overture  was  introduced  to  the  following  effect :  "  That  every  mem- 
ber of  this  Synod,  whether  minister  or  elder,  do,  sincerely  and 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  173 

heartily  receive,  acknowledge,  or  subscribe  the  Westminster  C(  n- 
fession  of  Faith,  and  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  as  the 
confession  of  his  faith ;  and  the  Directory,  as  far  as  circumstances 
will  allow  in  this  infant  church,  for  the  rule  of  church  order.  Or- 
dered, that  every  session  do  oblige  their  elders  at  their  admission 
to  do  the  same.  This  was  readily  approved  nem.  con.'"*  It  is  a 
little  remarkable  that  this  Synod,  when  all  the  members  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  were  absent,  (none  of  whom  attended 
this  year,)  and  when  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  and  their 
associates  were  out  of  the  house,  avowed  their  adherence  to  the 
Confession  and  Directory  in  terms  much  less  explicit  and  binding 
than  those  which  had  previously  been  unanimously  adopted,  when 
the  members  of  both  those  bodies  were  present. 

That  the  old  Synod  should  adhere  strictly  to  the  Confession,  is 
what  might  be  expected.  But  how  was  it  with  the  new  Synod  ? 
It  has  already  been  shown,  not  only  from  the  testimony  of  the 
Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  who  was  one  of  their  number,  but  from  their 
own  official  statement,  that  all  the  excluded  members  and  their 
associates  adhered  "  as  closely  and  fully  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, Catechisms,  and  Directory,  as  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
in  any  of  their  public  acts."f  The  Synod  of  New  York  was 
formed  in  1745,  and  consisted  of  the  Presbyteries  of  New  York, 
New  Brunswick,  and  New  Castle.  At  their  first  meeting  they 
adopted  certain  articles  "as  the  plan  and  foundation  of  their 
Synodical  union."  The  first  of  these  articles  is  as  follows  :  "  They 
agree  that  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the  Larger 
and  Shorter  Catechisms,  be  the  public  confession  of  their  faith,  in 
such  manner  as  was  agreed  upon  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  in 
the  year  1729,  (and  to  be  inserted  in  the  latter  end  of  this  book,) 
and  they  declare  their  approbation  of  the  Directory  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  Divines  at  Westminster,  as  the  general  plan  of  worship  and 
discipline."!     This  of  course,  by  itself,  proves  nothing  as  to  the 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii. 

f  Minutes  of  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  vol.  i.  p.  24. 

%  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  2. 


174  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

manner  in  which  the  Synod  adopted  the  Confession,  unless  it  can 
be  known  how  they  understood  the  act  of  1729.  The  opinions  of 
Messrs.  G.  Tennent,  William  Tennent,  Pierson,  Pemberton,  Samuel 
Blair,  and  John  Blair,  who  were  all  present  when  these  articles 
were  formed,  on  this  subject,  have  already  been  given,  either  in 
those  explanatory  acts  of  the  Synod  to  which  they  assented,  or  in 
the  citation  of  their  own  words  on  this  point.  Still,  were  this  all 
we  knew  of  the  ground  taken  by  this  Synod  in  relation  to  this 
subject,  it  would  at  least  remain  doubtful  how  far  they,  as  a  body, 
required  adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession.  It  happened 
to  them,  however,  as  it  did  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia.  The 
public  were  not  satisfied  with  this  ambiguous  statement,  and  they 
wrere  called  upon  to  explain  themselves.  Within  a  few  years,  the 
Synod,  in  order  to  allay  the  jealousies  of  their  neighbours,  among 
the  Dutch,  say,  "  We  do  hereby  declare  and  testify  our  constitu- 
tion, order,  and  discipline,  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  established 
Church  of  Scotland.  The  Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms, 
and  Directory  adopted  by  them,  are  in  like  manner  adopted  by 
us."*  Again,  in  1754,  when  writing  to  the  Scottish  General  As- 
sembly, they  say,  "  That  they  conform  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  have  adopted  her  standards  of  doctrine, 
worship,  and  discipline."  f  What  can  be  more  explicit  than  this? 
It  would  be  a  poor  service  to  the  authors  of  these  declarations  to 
prove  their  liberality  or  latitudinarianism,  as  the  reader  may  con- 
sider it,  at  the  expense  of  their  moral  character.  No  honest  man 
could  adopt  the  language  just  quoted,  unless  he  used  it  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  know  that  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed  would  un- 
derstand it.  For  the  Synod  of  New  York  to  tell  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  that  they  had  adopted  her  standards  of  doctrine,  if  they 
required  nothing  more  than  assent  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the 
gospel,  would  have  been  a  palpable  untruth.  Could  any  man,  to 
repeat  an  illustration  already  employed,  say  that  he  adopted  the 
standards  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  who  assented  to  nothing  but  the 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  Appendix,  p.  11. 
f  Ibid.  Appendix,  p.  13. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  175 

doctrines  of  the  trinity,  incarnation,  and  atonement  ?  It  is  not 
possible  to  reconcile  the  above  cited  declarations  of  this  Synod 
with  candour  and  fair  dealing,  on  any  other  assumption  than  that 
they  required  a  strict  adherence  to  the  system  of  doctrines  which 
they  professed  to  adopt. 

Another  proof  that  the  Synod  of  New  York  did  not  sanction  the 
loose  interpretation  which  has  been  put  upon  the  adopting  act  is, 
that  in  the  long  negotiations  between  them  and  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  reference  to  a  union,  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  differ- 
ence of  opinion  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Confession  of  Faith 
was  to  be  received.  These  negotiations  were  continued  through 
many  years,  and  the  papers  which  passed  between  the  two  bodies 
are  very  voluminous.  The  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  a  reconcili- 
ation, was  the  protestation  which  led  to  the  exclusion  of  the  New 
Brunswick  Presbytery,  and  the  testimony  which  the  New  York 
Synod  wished  should  be  rendered  to  the  genuineness  of  the  revival. 
The  former  was  the  main  obstacle.*  The  Confession  of  Faith,  or 
the  mode  of  its  adoption,  was  not  a  matter  of  dispute.  In  the  com- 
munication made  by  the  Synod  of  New  York  in  1749  to  that  of 
Philadelphia,  they  say,  "  We  esteem  mutual  forbearance  a  duty, 
since  we  all  profess  the  same  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory."f 
The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  in  their  communication  of  1751,  use 
precisely  the  same  language.  "  Upon  these  terms  (viz.  the  terms 
specified  in  their  letter)  we  heartily  agree  with  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  that  since  we  profess  the  same  Confession  of  Faith  and  Di- 
rectory for  worship,  all  our  former  differences  be  buried  in  perpe- 
tual oblivion."J  One  of  the  articles  proposed  in  1749,  by  the 
Synod  of  New  York,  was,  "  That  every  member  assent  unto  and 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory  according  to  the  plan 
formerly  agreed  to    by  the  Synod  of   Philadelphia  in    the  years 

*  "  The  protestation  made  in  1741,"  says  the  Synod  of  New  York,  "  ap- 
pears to  be  a  principal  obstruction  to  the  union  of  both  Synods."  —  Minutes, 
p.  94.  And  in  fact,  as  soon  as  they  agreed  about  that  point,  the  union  took 
place. 

t  Minutes,  p.  15.  J  Minutes,  Appendix,  p.  6. 


176  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

."  *     This  article  is  repeated  in  nearly  the  same  form  in  all 


the  subsequent  proposals.  Thus  in  1751  the  Philadelphia  Synod 
proposed,  as  their  second  article,  "  That  every  member  give  his 
consent  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory, 
according  to  the  plan  agreed  on  in  our  Synod,  and  that  no  acts  be 
made  but  concerning  matters  that  appear  to  be  plain  duty,  or  con- 
cerning opinions  that  we  believe  relate  to  the  great  truths  of  reli- 
gion, and  that  all  public  and  fundamental  agreements  of  this  Synod 
stand  safe."f  In  their  reply,  the  Synod  of  New  York  do  not 
make  the  slightest  objection  to  the  mode  proposed  of  assenting  to 
the  Confession  and  Directory.  But  as  the  schism  had  arisen  from 
the  refusal  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  to  submit  to  an  act 
of  Synod,  which  they  said  they  could  not  in  conscience  obey,  it 
was  proposed  that  "  no  member  or  members  should  be  obliged  to 
withdraw  from  our  communion  upon  his  or  their  not  being  able 
actively  to  concur  or  passively  submit,  unless  the  matter  be  judged 
essential  in  doctrine  or  discipline."!  To  this  the  other  party  as- 
sented ;  a  similar  provision  being  incorporated  in  the  terms  of  union 
finally  adopted.§     With  regard  to  the  proposal  by  the  Synod  of 

*  Minutes,  p.  16.  The  years  are  not  mentioned,  but  the  only  years  in 
which  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  acted  on  the  subject,  were  1729,  1730,  and 
1736. 

f  Appendix,  p.  3.  J  Minutes,  p.  36. 

\  This  article  does  not  relate  to  the  adoption  of  the  Confession,  or  to  the 
admission  of  new  members,  but  to  submission  to  the  decisions  of  ecclesias- 
tical judicatories.  All  their  acts  and  determinations  were  to  be  concurred  in 
or  submitted  to,  unless  conscience  forbad  it.  In  that  case  the  dissentients 
should  not  be  disowned,  unless  the  Synod  should  think  the  matter  essential  to 
their  doctrines  or  discipline. 

It  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  above  article,  that  our  pre- 
sent book  of  discipline,  chapter  v.,  section  13,  &c,  says,  "  Heresy  and  schism 
may  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  infer  deposition ;  but  errors  ought  to  be  care- 
fully considered ;  whether  they  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  are  indus- 
triously spread,  or  whether  they  arise  from  the  weakness  of  the  human  under- 
standing, and  are  not  likely  to  do  much  injury."  This  direction  as  to  the 
administration  of  discipline,  has  been  strangely  appealed  to  in  proof  that  a 
church  which  requires  every  candidate  for  the  ministry  to  declare  that  ho 
receives  the  "  system  of  doctrine"  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  does 
notwithstanding  require  nothing  more  than  assent  to  the  essential  d  >ctrines 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  177 

Philadelphia,  that  "  all  fundamental  agreements  by  this  Synod 
stand  safe  ;"  the  Synod  of  New  York  very  properly  said  they  could 
not  agree  to  it,  if  it  was  "  understood  to  refer  to  agreements  made 
by  said  Synod  [of  Philadelphia]  since  the  rupture  happened."  In 
making  such  agreements  they  had  not  concurred  ;  it  was  therefore 
unfair  that  they  should  be  bound  by  them.  This  very  limitation, 
however,  shows  that  they  were  willing  that  such  as  had  been  made 
before  the  schism,  should  remain.  This  would  leave  the  important 
acts  of  1730  and  1736,  relating  to  the  mode  of  adopting  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  in  full  force. 

The  decisive  evidence  that  there  was  no  material  diversity  of  opin- 
ion between  the  two  Synods  in  reference  to  the  point  under  consider- 
ation, is  the  fact  that  both  bodies  unanimously  adopted  and  ratified 
the  following  article  as  one  of  the  terms  of  their  union :  "  Both 
Synods  having  always  approved  and  received  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  as  an  orthodox 
and  excellent  system  of  Christian  doctrine,  founded  upon  the  word 
of  God ;  we  do  still  receive  the  same  as  the  confession  of  our  faith, 
and  also  adhere  to  the  plan  of  worship,  government,  and  discipline, 
contained  in  the  Westminster  Director}7" :  strictly  enjoining  it  on 
all  our  ministers  and  probationers  for  the  ministry,  that  they  preach 
and  teach  according  to  the  form  of  sound  words  in  the  said  Con- 
fession and  Catechisms,  and  avoid  and  oppose  all  errors  contrary 
thereto."*     How  decisive  would  this  be  considered  if   an  enemy 

of  the  gospel.  This  passage,  however,  has  no  relation  to  the  admission  of 
new  members.  It  simply  says,  what  it  is  presumed  no  one  ever  has  denied, 
that  deposition,  the  highest  ecclesiastical  censure,  ought  not  to  be  inflicted  for 
slight  aberrations  from  our  standards.  All  offences  against  the  truth,  morals, 
or  order,  should  be  punished  according  to  their  nature.  It  would  be  hard  to 
visit  a  man  with  the  same  penalty  for  a  hasty  word,  as  for  habitual  drunken- 
ness ;  and  it  would  be  equally  preposterous  to  depose  a  minister  who  should 
deny  that  the  Pope  was  antichrist,  when  you  could  inflict  no  higher  penalty 
upon  him  for  the  avowal  of  complete  infidelity.  How  a  rule  which  inculcates 
this  plain  principle  of  justice  can  prove  that  every  candidate  should  be  admit- 
ted to  the  ministry  who  does  not  deny  some  essential  doctrine  of  Christianity, 
it  is  difficult  to  perceive. 

*  Article  I.  of  the  plan  of  union  agreed  upon  by  the  Synods  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia,  in  1758. 

12 


178  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

were  endeavouring  to  fix  on  the  two  Synods  the  imputation  of  rigid 
Calvinism  !  Both  bodies  declare  that  they  always  have  received, 
and  do  still  receive  the  Westminster  Confession  as  the  confession 
of  their  faith  ;  the  very  form  of  adoption  in  use  in  the  strict  Presby- 
tery of  New  Castle,  in  the  palmy  days  of  Mr.  Thompson  and  Mr.  Gil- 
lespie. Every  minister  and  probationer  is  strictly  enjoined  to 
avoid  all  errors  contrary  to  the  standards  thus  assumed.  There 
must  be  an  end  of  all  confidence  among  men  if  such  language  can 
be  used  by  those  who  make  assent  to  the  essential  and  necessary 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  the  term  of  ministerial  communion ;  if  an 
Arminian,  Pelagian,  Roman  Catholic,  or  Quaker,  can  say  that 
he  receives  a  strictly  Calvinistic  creed  as  the  confession  of  his 
faith ! 

That  the  doctrinal  standard  of  our  Church  has  not  been  changed 
since  the  time  of  the  union  of  the  Synods  of  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia, appears  from  the  following  official  acts  and  declarations. 
In  1763,  application  was  made  by  a  Presbytery  in  New  York,  to 
the  east  of  the  North  river,  to  be  incorporated  with  the  Synod.  "  It 
was  agreed  to  grant  their  request,  provided  that  they  agree  to  adopt 
our  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  engage  to  observe  the 
Directory  as  a  plan  of  worship,  discipline,  and  government,  accord- 
ing to  the  agreement  of  this  Synod."*  The  last  clause  can  refer 
to  nothing  but  the  first  article  of  the  plan  of  union  just  quoted,  in 
which  the  united  body  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  the  con- 
fession of  their  faith  ! 

In  1770,  a  letter  was  written  to  the  Presbytery  of  South  Caro- 
lina, in  answer  to  an  application  for  an  union  between  the  two  bodies, 
in  which  the  Synod  say  :  "  The  conditions  which  we  require  are 
only  what  we  suppose  you  are  already  agreed  on,  viz.  :  That  all 
your  ministers  acknowledge  and  adopt  as  the  standard  of  doctrine, 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  and  the  Direc- 
tory as  the  plan  of  your  worship  and  discipline.  The  Church  of 
Scotland  is  considered  by  this  Synod  as  their  pattern  in  general, 
but  we  have  not  as  yet  expressly  adopted  by  resolution  of  Synod, 
or  bound  ourselves  to  any  other  of  the  standing  laws  or  forms  of 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  p.  60. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  179 

the  Church  of  Scotland,  than  those  above  mentioned,  intending  to 
lay  down  such  rules  for  ourselves,  upon  Presbyterian  principles  in 
general,  as  circumstances  shall,  from  time  to  time,  show  to  be  ex- 
pedient." Such  were  the  conditions  which  our  Church  used  to  in- 
sist upon  in  all  cases  of  union  with  foreign  bodies  ;  adherence  to 
her  standards,  both  as  to  doctrine  and  order.  In  the  above  record,  it 
is  not  only  stated  that  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms 
were  the  standard  of  doctrine  in  our  Church,  and  the  Directory 
the  plan  of  worship  and  discipline,  but  still  farther,  that  as  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  made  many 
standing  laws  suited  to  the  circumstances  of  the  Church  in  that 
country,  so  the  Synod  proposed  to  lay  down  rules  suited  to  our 
circumstances.  The  right  to  make  such  rules  is  assumed  as  per- 
fectly familiar  and  undoubted. 

In  1786,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  meet  similar  committees 
from  the  Synods  of  the  Dutch,  and  Associate  Reformed  Churches, 
with  the  view  of  negotiating  some  plan  of  union  between  the  several 
bodies.  When  this  convention  met,  it  directed  the  several  commit- 
tees of  which  it  was  composed,  to  state  explicitly  "  what  the  formulas 
of  doctrine  and  worship  are,  to  which  each  of  the  Synods  respect- 
ively adheres,  and  the  mode  in  which  they  testify  their  adherence, 
and  prevent  and  punish  any  departure  from  them."  "  On  the  part 
of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  the  reply  is  contained 
in  the  representation  given  in  by  their  committee,  articles  first  and 
fifth  ;  viz. 

"  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  adopt,  according  to 
the  known  and  established  meaning  of  the  terms,  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  as  the  confession  of  their  faith  ;  save  that 
every  candidate  for  the  gospel  ministry  is  permitted  to  except  against 
so  much  of  the  twenty-third  chapter  as  gives  authority  to  the  civil 
magistrate  in  matters  of  religion.  The  Presbyterian  Church  in 
America  considers  the  Church  of  Christ  as  a  spiritual  society 
entirely  distinct  from  the  civil  government ;  and  as  having  the  right 
to  regulate  their  own  ecclesiastical  polity  independently  of  the 
interposition  of  the  civil  magistrate. 

"  The  Synod  also  receives  the  Directory  for  public  worship,  and 


180  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

form  of  Olmrch  government  recommended  by  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  as  in  substance  agreeable  to  the  institutions  of  the  New 
Testament.  This  mode  of  adoption  we  use  because  we  believe  the 
general  platform  of  our  government  to  be  agreeable  to  the  sacred 
Scriptures  ;  but  we  do  not  believe  that  God  has  been  pleased  so  to 
reveal  and  enjoin  every  minute  circumstance  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment and  discipline  as  not  to  leave  room  for  orthodox  churches  of 
Christ  in  these  minutiae,  to  differ  with  charity  from  each  other. 

"  The  rules  of  our  discipline  and  the  form  of  process  in  our  church 
judicatures  are  contained  in  Pardevan's,  alias  Stewart's  Collections, 
in  conjunction  with  the  acts  of  our  own  Synod  ;  the  power  of  which, 
in  matters  merely  ecclesiastical,  we  consider  as  equal  to  the  power 
of  any  Synod  or  General  Assembly  in  the  world.  Our  church  judi- 
catories, like  those  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  from  which  we  de- 
rive our  origin,  are  church  sessions,  Presbyteries,  and  Synods,  to 
which  it  is  now  in  contemplation  to  add  a  national  or  General 
Assembly."* 

This  document,  considered  merely  as  containing  the  testimony  of 
competent  witnesses  as  to  the  constitution  of  our  Church,  is  of  the 
highest  authority.  It  was  delivered  under  circumstances  which 
rendered  both  accuracy  and  fidelity  indispensable.  Its  authors  were 
negotiating  a  treatv  with  other  churches,  who  had  a  right  to  know 
the  opinions  and  principles  of  those  with  whom  they  contemplated 
a  union.  Any  ambiguity  of  statement  or  want  of  candour  would, 
under  such  circumstances,  be  an  unpardonable  offence.  The  above 
document,  however,  is  something  more  than  the  testimony  of  a  com- 
mittee. It  is  that  testimony  approved  and  sanctioned  by  the  Synod. 
This  report  was  presented  and  accepted,  it  was  spread  out  upon  the 
minutes,  the  conduct  of  the  committee  approved,  no  one  of  their 
acts  or  statements  disallowed,  and  the  efforts  for  a  union  still 
farther  prosecuted. 

As  to  the  document  itself,  it  is  impossible  for  language  to  be 
more  explicit  as  to  all  the  points  to  which  it  relates.  The  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  is  said  to  be  the  confession  of  the  faith  of  the  Synod, 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  for  1786. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  181 

save  that  new  members  were  allowed  to  object  to  certain  clauses  in 
the  twenty-third  chapter.  The  very  exception  greatly  strengthens 
the  case.  That  the  new  members  were  required  to  adopt  the  Con- 
fession, except  those  clauses,  shows  that  nothing  else  was  allowed 
to  be  rejected.  This  is  precisely  what  the  old  Synod  twice,  unani- 
mously and  authoritatively,  in  1730  and  in  1736,  declared  was  the 
mode  in  which  the  Confession  was  to  be  adopted.  This  was  the 
condition  of  ministerial  communion  then  established,  and  which  the 
Synod  in  1786  declared  they  still  adhered  to.  The  evidence  as  to 
this  point  is  the  stronger  from  what  is  said  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  Directory  was  adopted.  The  Confession  of  Faith  was  received 
entirely,  with  the  single  exception  specified,  according  to  the  known 
and  established  meaning  of  the  words ;  but  the  Directory  was 
received  only  for  substance,  and  the  reason  is  given  for  this  mode 
of  adoption.  It  has  already  been  stated,  that  the  Directory  was  of 
such  a  nature,  abounding  so  much  with  prescriptions  relating  to 
local  and  temporary  circumstances,  that  the  strict  Presbytery  of 
Donegal  could  not  adopt  it  more  fully  than  the  whole  Synod  did. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  farther  on  this  document,  that  the  "  acts  of 
Synod"  are  declared  to  be  standing  rules,  regulating  the  adminis- 
tration of  discipline,  and  the  power  of  that  body  in  matters  merely 
ecclesiastical  is  declared  to  be  equal  to  the  power  of  any  Synod 
or  General  Assembly  in  the  world.  If  this  is  not  full-grown  Pres- 
byterianism,  it  would  be  difficult  to  know  where  to  find  it.  The 
committee  which  drew  up  these  declarations,  were  Drs.  Rodgers, 
Witherspoon,  McWhorter,  and  Samuel  Smith,  and  Messrs.  Nathan 
Kerr,  and  John  Woodhull.  There  is  no  obnoxious  Mr.  Thompson, 
Anderson,  or  Gillespie  here,  to  be  upbraided  for  "swallowing  the 
Confession  whole."  Yet  which  of  the  last-named  gentlemen  ever 
uttered  such  sweeping  declarations  as  are  here  made  by  Drs.  Rodgers 
and  McWhorter  ? 

Again,  in  1787,  the  committee  previously  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose, presented  the  draught  of  a  Form  of  Government  and  Disci- 
pline for  the  Church.  The  same  year  the  Synod  made  some  slight 
alterations  in  the  twentieth  and  twenty-third  chapters  of  the  West- 
minster Confession;  and  in  the  following  year,  "the  Synod  having 


182  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

fully  considered  the  draught  of  the  Form  of  Government  and  Dis- 
cipline, did  on  the  review  of  the  whole,  and  hereby  do  ratify  and 
adopt  the  same,  as  now  altered  and  amended,  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America,  and  order  the  same  to  be 
considered  and  strictly  observed  as  a  rule  of  their  proceedings  by 
all  the  inferior  judicatories  belonging  to  this  body.  And  they 
order  that  a  corrected  copy  be  printed,  and  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  as  now  altered,  to  be  printed  in  full  along  with 
it,  as  making  part  of  the  Constitution.  Resolved,  That  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  above  ratification  of  Synod  is,  that  the 
Form  of  Government  and  Discipline,  and  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
as  now  ratified,  is  to  continue  to  be  our  constitution,  and  the  con- 
fession of  our  faith,  unless  two-thirds  of  the  Presbyteries  under 
the  care  of  the  General  Assembly  propose  alterations  or  amend- 
ments, and  such  alterations  and  amendments  shall  be  agreed  to  and 
enacted  by  the  General  Assembly."* 

In  this  dying  act  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia, 
that  body  put  forth  all  its  power.  There  is  not  on  the  records  of 
the  Church,  unless  in  the  analogous  cases  of  the  several  adopting 
acts,  such  an  illustration  of  the  power  assumed  by  the  supreme 
judicatory  of  the  Church.  The  constitution  was  the  work  of  their 
own  hands ;  it  was  revised,  corrected,  adopted  and  imposed  by 
them,  and  made  unalterable  without  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds, 
of  the  Presbyteries,  and  the  sanction  of  the  General  Assembly. 
Though  the  draught  had  been  circulated  among  the  Presbyteries 
and  churches  for  their  suggestions  and  advice,  it  was  of  no  fore 
but  as  ratified  by  the  Synod,  who  ordered  all  the  inferior  judic? 
tories  to  make  it  the  rule  of  their  proceedings.  It  is  not  to  be  suj> 
posed  that  the  General  Assembly  has  fallen  heir  to  all  the  powe 
of  the  old  Synod.  Far  from  it.  The  acts  of  the  latter  body  wer. 
part  of  the  constitution  of  the  Church.  They  adopted  the  Wes'c 
minster  Confession,  and  it  was  ever  afterwards,  unless  the  rule  waj 
repealed,  to  be  adopted  by  all  new  members.  When  they  saw  fit 
they  altered  that  Confession,  and  it  became,  as  altered,  part  of  the 
constitution  of  the  Church.     The  Assembly  has  no  such  power.     It 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  pp.  450,  451. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  183 

acts  under  a  constitution  which  greatly  limits  its  authority.  It  can- 
not alter  or  add  to  that  fundamental  code.  Its  great  office  is  to 
see  that  the  constitution  is  faithfully  adhered  to,  both  as  to  doc- 
trine and  order,  in  all  parts  of  the  Church.  Its  acts  and  decisions, 
when  they  do  not  transcend  the  limits  set  to  its  authority,  are  of 
general  obligation,  until  properly  repealed  or  reversed.  But  it 
stands  in  a  very  different  relation  to  the  Church,  from  that  sus- 
tained by  the  old  Synod. 

The  present  object  of  inquiry,  however,  is  the  doctrinal  standard 
of  our  Church.  What  light  is  thrown  upon  this  point  by  the  docu- 
ment just  quoted  ?  What  is  meant  by  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith  being  a  part  of  our  constitution?  Who  ever  heard  of 
adopting  a  constitution  for  substance  ?  Is  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  thus  adopted  or  thus  interpreted  ?  It  is  on  the  con- 
trary the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  and  all  who  take  office  under 
it  are  bound  to  observe  it  in  all  its  parts.  If  then  the  Westminster 
Confession  is  a  part  of  our  constitution,  we  are  bound  to  abide  by 
it,  or  rightfully  to  get  it  altered.  Ever  since  the  solemn  enactment 
under  consideration,  every  new  member  or  candidate  for  the  min- 
istry has  been  required  to  give  his  assent  to  this  confession,  as  con- 
taining the  system  of  doctrines  taught  in  the  word  of  God.  He 
assents  not  merely  to  absolutely  essential  and  necessary  articles  of 
the  gospel,  but  to  the  whole  concatenated  statement  of  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Confession.  This,  whether  right  or  wrong,  liberal 
or  illiberal,  is  the  constitutional  and  fundamental  principle  of  our 
ecclesiastical  compact. 

Besides  the  above  official  and  authoritative  declarations,  the 
actual  administration  of  discipline  in  our  Church  proves  what 
standard  of  doctrine  has  been  assumed  and  enforced.  Ministerial 
communion  has  been  repeatedly  refused  to  those  Avho,  though  they 
denied  no  one  of  the  essential  and  necessary  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
yet  rejected  some  of  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  Thus,  as  already  stated,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harker  was  long 
under  process  and  finally  disowned  for  teaching  ;'  that,  according 
to  the  tenor  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  God  has  bound  himself  by 
promise  to  bestow  saving  blessings  upon  the  faith  and  endeavours 


184  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

of  unregenerate  men  ;  and  that  God  has  predestinated  persons  to 
salvation  on  the  foresight  of  faith  and  good  works,  or  compliance 
with  tha  terms  of  the  covenant."*  Mr.  Blair,  in  his  above-cited 
defence  of  the  Synod  against  Mr.  Harker's  appeal  to  the  public, 
says :  "  Mr.  Harker  makes  no  distinction  between  ministerial  and 
Christian  communion.  '  To  admit  me,'  says  he,  '  to  stand  well  in 
the  communion  with  the  Christian  church,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
expel,  and  exclude  me  communion  with  the  Synod  (as  a  minister, 
as  I  suppose  he  means),  would  in  my  opinion  involve  the  con- 
sequence, that  the  Synod  were  no  Christians.'  That  is,  the  Synod 
must  admit  every  one  (male  and  female  I  suppose),  into  the  pulpit, 
whom  they  would  admit  to  the  Lord's  table,  "f 

In  1798,  a  reference  was  made  to  the  General  Assembly,  by  the 
Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  in  relation  to  a  creed  published  by  the 
Rev.  Hezekiah  Balch.  The  most  important  errors  contained  in 
that  creed,  as  specified  by  the  committee  to  whom  it  was  referred, 
were  the  following :  First,  his  "  making  disinterested  benevolence 
the  only  definition  of  holiness  or  true  religion."  Second,  his  "re- 
presenting personal  corruption  as  not  derived  from  Adam  ;  making 
Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to  his  posterity  in  consequence  of  a  cor- 
rupt nature  already  possessed;  and  derived,"  say  the  committee, 
"from  we  know  not  what;  thus  in  effect  setting  aside  the  idea  of 
Adam's  being  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  his  descen- 
dants ;  and  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works."  Thirdly, 
"  asserting  that  the  formal  cause  of  a  believer's  justification  is  the 
imputation  of  the  fruits  and  effects  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and 
not  the  righteousness  itself."  The  Assembly  condemned  these  and 
other  minor  errors,  and  decided  that  Mr.  Balch  could  retain  his 
ministerial  standing  in  the  church,  only  on  the  condition  that  he 
publicly  renounced  them. J 

In  1810,  another  reference  was  made  by  the  Synod  of  the  Caro- 
linas, to  the  General  Assembly,  requesting  their  attention  to  a  late 

*  See  Minutes  of  Synod  for  1760,  for  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Harker,  and  thoso 
of  17G3,  for  the  sentence  passed  upon  him. 

f  Vindication  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  &c.  p.  12. 

X  Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  vol.  i.  pp.  175,  176.     Digest,  129-134. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  1S5 

publication,  entitled  'The  Gospel  Plan,'  by  the  Rev.  William  C. 
Davis.  The  book  was  referred  to  a  committee,  who  reported  the 
following,  among  other  propositions,  as  contained  in  it.  First,  that 
the  active  obedience  of  Christ  constitutes  no  part  of  the  righteous- 
ness by  which  a  sinner  is  justified.  Second,  that  obedience  to  the 
moral  law  was  not  required  as  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of 
works.  Third,  that  God  could  not  make  Adam,  or  any  other  crea- 
ture, either  holy  or  unholy.  Fourth,  that  regeneration  must  be  a 
consequence  of  faith.  Faith  precedes  regeneration.  Fifth,  that 
faith,  in  the  first  act  of  it,  is  not  an  holy  act.  Sixth,  that  if  God 
has  to  plant  all  the  principal  parts  of  salvation  in  a  sinner's  heart, 
to  enable  him  to  believe,  the  gospel  plan  is  quite  out  of  his  reach, 
and  consequently  does  not  suit  his  case;  and  it  must  be  impossible 
for  God  to  condemn  a  man  for  unbelief;  for  no  just  law  condemns 
or  criminates  any  person  for  not  doing  what  he  cannot  do.  The 
Assembly  declared  all  these  doctrines  to  be  contrary  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  our  Church.  Other  parts  of  the  work  are  cen- 
sured as  incautiously  expressed  and  as  of  dangerous  tendency. 
They  further  judged  that  the  preaching  or  publishing  the  doctrines 
above  stated  "  ought  to  subject  the  person  or  persons  so  doing  to 
be  dealt  with  by  their  respective  Presbyteries,  according  to  the 
discipline  of  the  Church  relative  to  the  propagation  of  error."* 

If  then,  explicit  official  declarations  and  the  actual  administra- 
tion of  discipline  can  decide  the  question,  it  is  clear  that  our  Church 
has  always  required  adherence  to  the  system  of  doctrine  contained 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  as  a  condition  of  ministe- 
rial communion.  From  the  adopting  act  of  1729  to  the  present 
hour,  there  is  not  a  line  upon  our  records  which,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  teaches  that  nothing  beyond  the  essential  and  necessary 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  was  to  be  required  of  its  ministers. f     On 

*  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly,  pp.  334,  335. 

f  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Assembly  of  1836  did  not  decide  that  the 
errors  charged  upon  Mr.  Barnes  were  undeserving  of  censure.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  declared  that  they  were  not  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  That  gentleman  was  acquitted  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  hold 
the  errors  charged. 


186  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  contrary  the  very  ambiguity  of  the  adopting  act  was  the  occa- 
sion of  that  doctrine  being  repudiated,  and  a  strict  adherence  to 
the  Confession  enjoined  with  a  frequency  and  clearness  which  other- 
wise would  not  have  been  called  for.  Thus,  in  1730  it  was  declared 
that  every  new  member  must  adopt  the  whole  of  the  Confession 
except  certain  clauses  relating  to  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate. 
The  same  declaration  was  made  with  like  unanimity  and  still 
greater  emphasis  in  1736.  In  1741,  the  Synod  repeated  their 
unqualified  adoption  of  the  Confession,  and  the  ejected  members 
declared  that  they  also  adhered  to  it  with  equal  strictness.  The 
Synod  of  New  York,  during  the  schism,  declared  that  they  had 
the  same  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline,  as  the 
Church  of  Scotland ;  and  the  two  Synods,  at  the  time  of  the 
union,  unanimously  declared,  without  limitation  or  qualification, 
the  Westminster  Confession  to  be  the  confession  of  their  faith.  In 
1786,  a  committee  of  Synod,  in  negotiating  with  two  other  Chris- 
tian bodies,  inform  them  that  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia receive  the  Westminster  Confession,  save  that  every  can- 
didate is  allowed  to  object  to  certain  parts  of  the  twenty-third 
chapter.  When  the  General  Assembly  was  formed,  the  Confession 
as  then  altered,  and  as  it  now  exists,  was  declared  to  be  a  part  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Church.  Had  these  facts  and  documents 
been  known  and  regarded,  the  assertion  that  it  is  a  constitutional 
principle  of  our  Church  to  demand  of  its  ministers  nothing  more 
than  assent  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  never  could 
have  been  made.  If  they  do  not  ascertain  and  prove  the  condition 
of  ministerial  communion  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  to  be  adherence  to  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Westminster  Confession,  no  set  of  men  can,  in  future,  hope  to 
make  their  intentions  understood. 

This  question  about  the  conditions  of  ministerial  communion  has 
been  so  much  connected  with  the  exposition  of  the  adopting  act  of 
1729,  that  it  was  deemed  expedient  to  disregard,  in  this  case,  a 
mere  chronological  arrangement,  and  to  bring  together  in  one  view, 
all  the  documents  which  serve  either  to  fix  the  meaning  of  that 
act,  or  to  decide  what  is  the  doctrinal  standard  of  our  Church.     It 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  187 

is  hoped  that  the  importance  of  the  subject  will  be  considered  a 
sufficient  apology  for  the  length  of  the  discussion.  It  is  now  time, 
however,  to  return  to  the  consideration  of  the  period  which  is  more 
particularly  under  review. 

Agreeably  to  the  settled  principle  and  common  understanding  of 
Presbyterian  government,  such  an  act  as  that  of  1729,  when  once 
passed,  remains  obligatory  upon  all  the  inferior  judicatories  until 
properly  repealed.  We  accordingly  find  that,  after  1729,  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith  by  all  new  members  was  regularly 
required  by  every  Presbytery,  and  regularly  reported  to  the  Synod. 
Thus,  in  1730,  it  is  recorded  that  "  Mr.  Elmer  desiring  time  last 
Synod  to  consider  of  the  Synod's  declaring  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, Catechisms,  &c. ;  and  Mr.  Morgan  and  Mr.  Pemberton 
being  absent,  do  all  now  report  that  they  have  declared  before  the 
Presbytery,  and  desire  their  names  be  inserted  in  our  Synodical 
records."*  In  the  following  year,  Mr.  Cross,  who  had  been  ab- 
sent from  the  two  preceding  meetings  of  Synod,  was  called  upon 
to  signify  his  opinion  of  the  Synod's  acts,  &c. ;  "  the  said  Mr.  Cross 
did  declare  his  hearty  concurrence  with  all  that  the  Synod  had 
done  in  that  affair,  and  that  he  did  adopt  the  said  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms  as  the  confession  of  his  faith. "f  In  1732, 
it  is  said  of  Mr.  Bertram,  of  the  Presbytery  of  Bangor  in  Ireland, 
"  after  declaring  his  full  and  free  assent  unto  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  the  Synod  did  unanimously  and 
cheerfully  comply  with  his  desire  of  admission  as  a  member  of  this 
Synod."J  On  the  same  page  it  is  recorded,  that  "the  Moderator 
(Mr.  Steward)  and  Mr.  Orme,  not  having  opportunity  before,  either 
in  Presbytery  or  Synod,  did  now  declare  their  hearty  assent  unto 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  and  adopted  them  as  the 
confession  of  their  faith."  In  1734,  it  was  ordered,  that  the  Synod 
make  a  particular  inquiry  during  the  time  of  their  meeting  every 
year,  whether  such  ministers  as  have  been  received  as  members 
since  the  foregoing  meeting  of  the  Synod  have  adopted,  or  been 
required  by  the  Synod,  or  by  their  respective  Presbyteries,  to  adopt 
the  Westminster  Confession   of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  with   the 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  14.        f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  19.         J  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  21. 


1 88  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

Directory,  according  to  the  acts  of  the  Synod  made  some  years 
since  for  that  purpose  ;  and  also,  that  the  report  made  to  Synod 
in  answer  to  said  inquiry,  be  recorded  on  our  minutes. 

"  Mr.  Samuel  Pumry,  Mr.  James  Martin,  Mr.  Robert  Jamison, 
and  Mr.  Samuel  Hemphill,  declared  for  and  adopted  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms,  and  Directory  commonly 
annexed ;  the  former  as  the  confession  of  their  faith,  the  latter  as 
the  guide  of  their  practice  in  matters  of  discipline  as  far  as  may 
be  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  prudence,  &c,  as  in  the  adopting  acts 
of  Synod  is  directed. 

"  Pursuant  to  the  act  of  Synod  found  upon  inquiry,  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Tennent,  Jun.,  Mr.  Andrew  Archbold,  ordained,  and  Mr. 
Samuel  Blair,  licensed,  did  each  and  every  of  them  declare  their 
assent  and  consent  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Cate- 
chisms, and  Directory  annexed,  according  to  the  intent  of  the  act 
of  Synod,  in  that  case  made  and  provided."* 

In  the  minutes  for  1735,  it  is  recorded  that,  "  inquiry  being 
made  according  to  the  order  of  last  Synod,  whether  those  admitted 
into  any  of  our  Presbyteries  since  last  Synod,  have  adopted  the 
Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms,  &c,  according  to  the  adopt- 
ing act  of  the  Synod,  it  was  found  that  Messrs.  Isaac  Chalker, 
Simon  Horton,  and  Samuel  Blair,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of 
East  Jersey,  and  Mr.  Hugh  Carlisle,  admitted  into  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle,  have  done  it,  according  to  the  order  aforesaid,  "f 
Similar  entries  appear  after  this  almost  every  year. J 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  31.  f  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  35 

X  Annexed  is  a  list  of  Ministers  who  entered  the  Presbyterian  Church  from 
1729  to  1741.  The  writer  has  not  the  means  of  making  this  list  complete  or 
satisfactory.  The  records  of  the  Synod  rarely  state,  either  the  place  of  settle- 
ment or  origin  of  the  new  members ;  and  the  minutes  of  the  several  Presby 
teries  from  which  this  information  might  be  obtained,  are,  for  the  most  part, 
defective,  lost,  or  inaccessible. 

llev.  Daniel  Elmer,  Fairfield,  New  Jersey ;  first  mentioned  as  a  member  of 
Synod  1729.     He  was  from  New  England,  as  stated  on  a  previous  page. 

Rev.  John  Wilson, 1729,  from  Ireland,  as  stated  above. 

Rev.  John  Tennent,  licensed  by  the  New  Castle  Presbytery,  and  was  settled 
for  a  short  time  at  Freehold,  New  Jersey,  where  he  died  early  in  life.  He 
came  from  Ireland  with  his  father,  the  Rev.  William  Tennent,  Sen. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  189 

With  regard  to  the  administration  of  the  discipline  and  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  the  same  characteristics  which  marked  the 
preceding  period,  are  to  be  found  also  in  that  from  1729  to  1741. 
As  might  be  expected,  the  Synod  continued  to  exercise  all  the  ordi- 
nary Synodical  powers.  The  records  of  the  several  Presbyteries 
were  regularly  called  for  and  revised,  and  approved  or  censured,  as 
the  occasion  demanded.     Appeals,  references,  and  complaints  were 

Rev.  Ebenezer  Gould,  Greenwich,  New  Jersey,  1730,  probably  from  Long 
Island  or  New  England. 

Rev.  Eleazar  Wales,  Allentown,  Pennsylvania,  afterwards  at  Kingston,  New 
Jersey,  1731. 

Rev.  Richard  Treat,  Abington,  Pennsylvania,  1732. 

Rev.  Robert  Cathcart, 1732,  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 

and  probably  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  William  Bertram,  Derry  and  Paxton,  1732,  received  as  a  minister  from 
the  Presbytery  of  Bangor,  Ireland.     Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  21. 

Rev.  John  Cross,  Baskingridge,  1733,  became  a  member  of  the  New  Bruns- 
wick Presbytery.     He  was  probably  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  Benjamin  Campbell, 1730.     In  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of 

New  Castle,  p.  157,  it  is  recorded,  "  Mr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Legat,  students 
in  divinity  from  Ireland,  presented  to  the  Presbytery  their  respective  testi- 
monials." 

Rev.  John  Nutman,  East  Hanover,  New  Jersey,  1733.  Probably  from  New- 
ark, New  Jersey,  as  that  was  the  residence  of  an  extended  family  of  that  name. 

Rev.  Samuel  Hemphill, 1734,  received  as  a  minister  from  the  Presby- 
tery of  Straban,  Ireland.     He  was  disowned  for  heresy  in  1735. 

Rev.  Andrew  Archbold, 1734,  reported  to  the  Synod  as  ordained ;  pro- 
bably by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle.     See  minutes,  p.  31. 

Rev.  James  Martin,  Lewes,  Delaware,  1734,  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  Robert  Jamison, 1734.     He  was  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of 

Lewes,  and  was  probably  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  Shrewsbury,  New  Jersey,  Londonderry,  Pennsylvania, 
and  principal  of  the  academy  at  Fagg's  Manor,  1735.  He  was  a  native  of  Ire- 
land.    See  Dr.  Miller's  Retrospect,  vol.  iii.  p.  204. 

Rev.  Simon  Horton, 1735.     It  is  believed  that  he  was  settled  in  East 

Jersey,  and  that  he  was  from  New  England. 

Rev.  Isaac  Chalker,  Wallkill,  New  York,  1735,  from  Long  Island. 

Rev.  Hugh  Carlisle, 1735,  probably  from  Ireland. 

Rev.  William  Tennent,  Jun.,  Freehold,  New  Jersey,  1735.    Born  in  Ireland. 

Rev.  Patrick  Glasgow,  Monokin,  Maryland,  1736 ;  ordained  by  the  Presby- 
tery of  Lewes. 


190  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

received  and  decided.  For  example,  in  1736,  "  an  appeal  from  a 
part  of  the  Rev.  William  Tennent's  people  from  the  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  was  brought  in  and  read,  together 
vrith  a  .supplication  of  said  persons  to  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, and  their  judgment  upon  it.  After  that,  Mr.  Tennent,  the 
appellants,  and  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  were  heard  at  length  ; 
at  last  all  parties  were  ordered  to  remove,  and  the  Synod  entered 
upon  a  debate  upon  the  affair,  and  at  last  agreed  in  the  following 
unanimous  judgment,  viz. :   '  That  it  appears  evident  to  the  Synod, 

Rev.  Alexander  Creaghead,  Pequa,  1736 ;  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Donegal. 

Rev.  John  Paul,  Nottingham,  1736  ;  from  Ireland.     Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  43. 

Rev.  John  McDowell  was  received  as  a  probationer  from  the  Presbytery  of 
Temple  Patrick,  Ireland.     Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  43. 

Rev.  Francis  Allison,  Chester  county,  Pennsylvania,  afterwards  vice-provost 
of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  1737.  He  was  born  and  educated  in  Ire- 
land.    Dr.  Miller's  Retrospect,  vol.  iii.  pp.  201,  204. 

Rev.  Samuel  Black,  Forks  of  Brandywine,  1737  ;  received  as  a  probationer 
from  Ireland.     See  minutes  of  Donegal  Presbytery,  p.  117. 

Rev.  Aaron  Burr,  Newark ;  president  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  1738. 
He  was  a  native  of  Connecticut,  and  was  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York. 

Rev.  John  Elder,  Paxton,  Pennsylvania,  1738,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery 
of  Donegal. 

Rev.  Walter  Wilmot, 1738,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

Rev.  Charles  Tennent, 1738,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle. 

Born  in  Ireland. 

Rev.  Richard  Sanckey, 1739,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal, 

removed  with  his  congregation  to  Prince  Edward,  Virginia,  where  he  died  at 
a  very  advanced  age. 

Rev.  David  Alexander,  Pequa,  1739,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal. 

Rev.  John  Thompson,   Jun. 1739,    ordained    by    the   Presbytery   of 

Donegal. 

Rev.  Joseph  Leonard,  Goshen,  1739,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York.     He  was  from  New  England.     MS.  history. 

Rev.  James  McCrea,  Lamberton,  New  Jersey,  1739.    MS.  history. 

Rev.  Samuel  Thompson,  Carlisle  and  Silver  Spring,  1740.  He  was  from 
Ireland.     Minutes  of  Donegal  Presbytery,  p.  153. 

Rev.  Samuel  Cavin, 1740,  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal.    He 

was  from  Ireland.     Minutes  of  Donegal  Presbytery,  p.  153. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  191 

that  Mr.  Tennent  having  in  all  respects  acted  and  been  esteemed 
and  looked  upon,  not  only  by  this  Synod,  but  also  by  the  congre- 
gation of  Neshaminy,  and  particularly  by  the  appellants  them- 
selves, as  the  minister  and  pastor  of  the  people  of  Neshaminy,  that 
he  is  still  to  be  esteemed  the  pastor  of  that  people,  notwithstanding 
the  want  of  a  formal  installation  among  them,  (which  omission, 
though  the  Synod  doth  not  justify,  yet  it  is  far  from  nullifying  the 
pastoral  relation  between  Mr.  Tennent  and  the  said  people,)  and 
consequently  that  the  Synod  doth  justify  the  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  in  reference  to  the  matter ;  and  that 
the  appellants  had  no  just  cause  of  complaining  against,  or  appeal- 
ing from  the  said  judgment  of  the  Presbytery."* 

It  was  also  in  the  exercise  of  the  usual  powers  of  such  bodies, 
that  the  Synod  erected  new  Presbyteries  or  divided  old  ones,  as 
occasion  required.  In  17-32,  "  it  being  overtured  by  the  committee 
of  overtures,  that  an  erection  of  a  new  Presbytery  in  Lancaster 
county  should  be  appointed  by  the  Synod,  it  was  voted  by  a  great 
majority  that  Masters  Anderson,  Thompson,  Orr,  Boyd,  and  Ber- 
tram, be  members  of  a  Presbytery  by  the  name  of  Donegal  Presby- 
tery, "f  In  1733,  an  overture  was  presented  by  the  committee  for 
a  division  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  which  was  approved, 
and  it  was  "agreed  that  Messrs.  Andrews,  Morgan,  Evans,  Tennent, 
Treat,,  Elmer,  Gould,  and  Wales,  be  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
and  that  the  rest  of  the  members  now  in  said  Presbytery  be  the 
Presbytery  of  East  Jersey. "|  In  1735,  a  request  was  made  by 
Messrs.  Hook,  Jamison,  Stevenson,  and  Martin,  that  they  might  be 
set  off  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  "  and  erected  into  a 
Presbytery  by  themselves  ;  the  Synod  do  agree  that  they  become  a 
Presbytery  under  the  name  of  the  Presbytery  of  Lewestown,  and 
do  order  them  to  meet  and  constitute  the  19th  day  of  November 
next,  at  Lewestown. "§  In  1738,  it  is  recorded  that  "the  Presby- 
tery of  Long  Island  being  reduced  so  that  a  quorum  cannot  statedly 
meet  about  business,  'tis  ordered  that  they  be  united  with  the  Pres- 
bytery of  East  Jersey,  and  be  henceforth  known  by  the  name  of  the 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  46.  f  !bid.  vol.  ii.  p.  22. 

%  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  26.  g  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  38. 


192  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURCH 

Presbytery  of  New  York."*  The  same  year,  "  upon  a  supplication 
of  some  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  to  be  erected 
into  a  new  Presbytery,  with  some  members  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  overtured  that  their  petition  be  granted,  and  all  to 
the  northward  of  Maidenhead  and  Hopewell  unto  the  Raritan  river, 
including  also  Staten  Island,  Piscatawa,  Amboy,  Boundbrook,  Bas- 
kingridge,  Turkey,  Rocksitius,  Minisinks,  Pequally,  and  Crosswicks, 
be  the  bounds  of  that  Presbytery,  and  that  the  said  Presbytery  be 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  and  that 
the  time  of  their  meeting  be  the  second  Tuesday  of  August  next, 
at  New  Brunswick.     This  overture  was  approved. "f 

It  was  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  as  one  of  the  peculiarities 
of  our  first  Synod,  that,  in  accordance  with  the  Scottish  system, 
it  exercised  all  Presbyterial  powers.  The  examples  of  the  exercise 
of  such  powers,  during  the  period  under  review,  are  very  numerous. 
The  Synod  was  in  the  habit,  for  example,  of  receiving  and  disposing 
of  ministers  and  candidates  who  had  not  connected  themselves 
with  any  of  our  Presbyteries.  In  1730,  Mr.  John  Peter  Miller,  a 
Dutch  probationer,  recently  arrived  in  the  country,  was  received, 
and  left  to  the  care  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery.  In  1732,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Bertram  was  received  from  the  Presbytery  of  Bangor  in 
Ireland.  In  1736,  Mr.  John  McDowell  presented  his  credentials 
from  the  Presbytery  of  Temple  Patrick  in  Ireland,  and  "  was  re- 
ceived by  the  Synod  as  a  probationer,"  and  recommended  to  any 
Presbytery  to  which  he  might  choose  to  apply.  The  Synod  like- 
wise ordained,  censured,  removed,  and  suspended  ministers  without 
the  intervention  of  a  Presbytery.  Thus,  in  1735,  "  a  supplication 
being  brought  into  Synod  from  the  people  of  Goshen,  and  also  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Tudor,  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  there,  both 
signifying  that  he  is  ready  to  adopt  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  &c.  and  to  submit  to  Presbyterial  rules ;  and  also  desiring  Synod 
would,  as  soon  as  possibly  may  be,  send  a  committee  to  the  said  place 
to  attend  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Tudor  there,  "  the  Synod"  it  is  said 
"  do  accordingly  appoint  Mr.  Robert  Cross,  Mr.  Pumry,  Mr.  Webb, 
Mr.  Nutman,  Mr.  John  Cross,  and  Mr.  Chalker,  to  meet  at  Goshen, 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  56.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  58. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  193 

the  last  Wednesday  of  the  next  month,  October,  to  attend  to  the 
said  ordination,  and  that  Mr.  Robert  Cross  preside  in  the  said  affair. 
And  the  Synod  do  further  appoint  for  the  trials  of  Mr.  Tudor,  that 
he  make  an  exegesis  in  Latin  upon  that  question,  An  lex  natuise 
sit  sufficient  ad  salutem  ?  and  that  he  preach  a  popular  sermon  upon 
Rom.  ii.  6."  The  following  year,  the  above  committee  reported 
that  they  did  not  ordain  Mr.  Tudor  "  because  of  his  insufficiency." 

In  1735,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hemphill  was  tried  by  the  commission 
of  Synod  for  false  doctrines,  and  the  case  upon  their  report  came 
before  the  Synod,  who  passed  the  following  sentence :  "  The  Synod 
from  the  consideration  of  his  contumacy  in  his  errors  ;  his  disregard 
of  the  censures  of  the  commission ;  and  rejecting  our  communion ; 
do  declare  him  unqualified  for  any  further  exercise  of  his  ministry 
within  our  bounds,  and  that  this  be  intimated  to  all  our  congrega- 
tions, by  each  respective  minister.     Approved  nem.  con."* 

The  Synod  also  frequently  acted  in  reference  to  the  congrega- 
tions in  the  capacity  of  a  Presbytery.  Thus,  in  1733,  "  Mr.  An- 
drews made  a  motion  to  the  committee  of  overtures  that  an  assis- 
tant be  allowed  unto  him  in  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  this  city, 
and  the  committee  after  discoursing  upon  it,  having  recommended 
the  consideration  thereof  to  the  Synod,  upon  the  proviso,  that  if 
the  said  motion  be  allowed  or  approved,  there  be  first  a  sufficient 
provision  made  for  an  honourable  maintenance  of  Mr.  Andrews, 
during  his  continuance  among  this  people,  and  the  Synod  entered 
upon  the  consideration  of  the  said  motion  .  .  .  and  it  was  carried 
in  the  affirmative,  nem.  con."  It  was  then  overtured  "  that  the 
congregation  be  allowed  to  call  an  assistant  to  Mr.  Andrews," 
which  was  also  agreed  to.  In  1734,  it  appears  an  application  was 
made  to  the  commission  for  the  removal  of  Mr.  Robert  Cross  from 
Jamaica  to  Philadelphia.  The  matter  was  thus  brought  before 
Synod,  when  the  commissioners  from  the  two  congregations  inter- 
ested in  the  business,  were  heard,  and  after  public  notice  had  been 
given  to  the  people  of  the  First  Church,  that  if  any  of  them  had 
"  any  thing  to  object  against  Mr.  Cross'  being  settled  here  in  Phila- 
delphia, they  may  appear  and  offer  what  they  had  to  say  in  the 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  38. 

13 


191  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

affair,"  Synod  decided  against  his  removal.  The  following  year  it 
is  recorded  that  "  a  supplication  being  brought  into  the  Synod  from 
one  part  of  the  Presbyterian  congregation  of  Philadelphia,  desir- 
ing Mr.  Robert  Cross  to  be  granted  for  their  minister  ;  also  another 
paper  to  strengthen  the  supplication  ;  and  also  another  supplication 
from  another  part  of  the  said  congregation  desiring  Mr.  Jonathan 
Dickinson  to  be  their  minister,  the  Synod  not  having  time  to  issue 
that  affair  at  present,  do  defer  the  consideration  of  it  till  to-morrow 
morning."  The  following  day,  however,  a  petition  was  presented 
by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Cross  to  be  erected  into  a  new  congregation, 
which  was  deferred  for  future  consideration.  The  next  morning 
the  motion  for  a  new  erection  "  was  carried  in  the  affirmative  by  a 
great  majority.  Mr.  John  Smith  of  Bethlehem,  in  the  Highlands 
of  New  York,  desired  that  his  dissent  might  be  entered  on  our 
minutes."  This  decision  having  produced  dissatisfaction,  it  was 
re-considered  in  the  afternoon,  and  re-affirmed.  Messrs.  Dickinson, 
Pemberton,  Webb,  Elmer,  Chalker,  and  Wales,  dissenting.  The 
Synod  then  declared  that  they  did  not  intend  by  their  decision  "  to 
oblige  the  said  people  to  erect  themselves  into  a  new  congregation, 
but  only  that  the  Synod  allowed  them  to  do  so."  *  The  following 
summer,  a  new  congregation  was  formed  by  the  Synod's  commis- 
sion;  and  in  1737,  a  call  from  the  new  erection  in  this  city,"  it  is 
said,  "  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Robert  Cross,  together  with  a  supplication 
to  the  Synod  containing  arguments  to  move  the  Synod  to  concur  with 
the  designs  of  the  said  call,  were  read."  The  call  was  handed  to  Mr. 
Cross  and  his  sentiments  desired  in  relation  to  it.  In  answer  to  which 
he  said  '  that  he  was  clearly  convinced  and  persuaded  in  his  judgment, 
as  things  now  appear,  that  it  is  his  duty  to  remain  with  the  people 
of  Jamaica,  and  he  thought  the  Synod  could  not  determine  this 
matter  until  his  people  be  apprized  thereof,  and  have  opportunity 
to  declare  themselves  concerning  it.'  The  Synod  then  agreed  that 
"  the  clerk  and  Mr.  Elmer,  each  of  them  by  himself,  should  en- 
deavour to  prepare  an  overture  upon  the  affair  to  be  brought  in  the 
afternoon,  to  be  considered  by  the  Synod."  This  overture,  which 
was  unanimously  adopted,  proposed  to  defer  the  question  of  Mr. 
*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  42. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  19") 

Cross'  removal  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Synod ;  that  in  the 
meantime  he  should  preach  two  months  for  the  new  congregation ; 
that  the  Synod  should  appoint  supplies  for  the  people  of  Jamaica 
during  Mr.  Cross'  absence,  &c.  &c.  In  1737,  a  supplication  was 
again  presented  to  the  Synod  for  Mr.  Cross,  "  the  purport  where- 
of was  to  invalidate  what  was  offered  in  the  supplication  from  Ja- 
maica." Mr.  Cross  having  submitted  himself  wholly  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Synod ;  after  considerable  debate,  and  "  after  solemn 
calling  upon  God  for  light  and  direction,  it  was  decided  nem.  con., 
to  transfer  Mr.  Cross  to  Philadelphia."*  In  the  following  year  it 
was  reported  to  the  Synod  "  that  the  Rev.  Robert  Cross  was  in- 
stalled since  our  last  meeting,  according  to  the  Synod's  appoint- 
ment, and  that  the  two  congregations  in  Philadelphia  were  since 
united."  In  all  this  protracted  business,  neither  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  to  which  Mr.  Cross  belonged,  nor  that  of  Phila- 
delphia with  which  the  congregation  was  connected,  is  so  much 
as  named.  So  completely  did  the  Synod  act  on  the  Scottish 
principle,  that  the  higher  court  has  all  the  powers  of  the  lower 
ones. 

The  Synod  continued  to  transact  much  of  its  business  by  com- 
mittees, which  were  sometimes  designed  merely  to  collect  informa- 
tion, but  most  commonly  were  clothed  with  full  powers.  Thus,  in 
1731,  some  difficulty  having  occurred  between  Mr.  Bradner  of 
Goshen  and  one  of  his  church  members,  the  Synod  "appointed  a 
committee  to  go  to  Goshen,  with  the  full  power  of  the  Synod,  to 
hear  and  determine  that  business."  f  In  1734,  "an  appeal  being 
brought  in  by  Mr.  John  Kirkpatrick  and  Mr.  John  Moor  from  the 
Presbytery  of  Donegal,  the  Synod  appointed  that  Messrs.  An- 
drews, William  Tennent,  Treat,  Alexander  Hucheson,  George  Gil- 
lespie, Thomas  Evans,  and  Henry  Hook,  be  a  committee  to  meet 
on  the  first  Wednesday  in  November  next  to  hear  the  said  appeal, 
and  determine  it  by  the  authority  of  Synod,  and  that  they  bring 
an  account  of  their  transactions  therein  to  the  next  Synod.  And 
the  Synod  do  also  empower  the  said  committee  to  hear  any  matter 
de  novo,  that  shall  be  brought  before  them  by  the  said  John  Kirk- 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  53.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  20. 


196  PRESBYTERIANCHURCn 

patrick  ami  John  Moor,  with  relation  to  the  affair  aforesaid,  and 
authoritatively  to  determine  thereupon  ;  appointing  also  that  if 
either  party  shall  appeal  from  the  determination  of  the  said  com- 
mittee, they  shall  enter  their  appeal  immediately,  that  it  may  be 
finally  determined  by  the  next  Synod."*  In  1737,  we  find  the 
following  record:  "  Overturcd  on  Mr.  Morgan's  affair,  that  inas- 
much  as  it  would  be  both  difficult  and  tedious  for  the  Synod  to 
make  a  particular  inquiry  into  the  whole  affair,  the  Synod  appoint 
the  Presbyteries  of  Philadelphia  and  East  Jersey  to  meet  as  a  com- 
mittee at  Maidenhead  and  judge  of  the  said  affair,  and  absolve  Mr. 
Morgan  from  the  censure  he  lies  under,  if  he  appear  suitably  peni- 
tent, and  no  new  accusations  be  advanced  against  him  :  and  Mr. 
Morgan  to  continue  under  suspension  until  the  said  committee  meet, 
and  that  at  least  three  members  of  each  Presbytery  be  a  quorum. 
The  first  Wednesday  of  August  next  to  be  the  time  of  meeting ; 
and  it  is  ordered  that  every  minister  do  endeavour  to  bring  an  elder 
with  him.      Approved  nem.  con."f 

The  following  minute  affords  an  illustration  of  one  other  pecu- 
liarity in  the  mode  of  action  adopted  by  the  Synod.  A  reference 
was  made  in  1738  by  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  of  some  dif- 
ficulty between  them  and  the  congregation  of  Hopewell  and  Maid- 
enhead. The  Synod  censured  the  conduct  of  the  people,  and 
"  wholly  disallowed  the  said  complainants  being  erected  into  a  new 
congregation,  until  they  do  first  submit  the  determination  of  the 
place  for  erecting  a  new  meeting-house  to  their  Presbytery,  as  was 
agreed  upon  between  them  and  their  neighbours,  as  a  condition  of 
their  being  a  separate  congregation.  This  overture  was  approved 
by  a  large  majority.  And  it  is  further  ordered  by  the  Synod,  that 
when  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  meet  at  Hopewell  and  Maid- 
enhead, to  fix  the  place  of  a  new  meeting-house,  they  shall  call  the 
following  correspondents :  Messrs.  John  Pierson,  John  Nutman, 
Samuel  Blair,  Aaron  Burr,  Nathaniel  Hubbell,  and  Eleazar  Wales. "J 

There  is  not  much  in  the  powers  granted  to  the  committee,  in 
the  following  illustration,  beyond  what  is  now  customary  ;  but  the 
case  is  interesting  and  instructive.     In  1738,  "  Mr.  Gilbert  Ten- 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  30.         f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  52.         J  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  68. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  197 

nent  represented  to  the  committee  that  there  had  been  differing 
sentiments  in  some  points  of  doctrine,  between  himself  and  Mr. 
David  Cowell,  upon  which  there  had  been  sundry  large  letters 
passed  between  them,  concerning  which  it  is  overtured :  That 
this  affair  be  considered  by  a  committee  appointed  by  the  Synod, 
who  shall  be  directed  to  converse  with  Mr.  Tennent  and  Mr. 
Cowell  together,  that  they  may  see  whether  they  so  widely  dif- 
fer in  their  sentiments  as  is  supposed,  and  if  there  be  necessity, 
distinctly  to  consider  the  papers,  that  Mr.  Tennent  and  Mr. 
Cowell  be  both  directed  to  refrain  all  public  discourse  upon  the 
controversy,  and  all  methods  of  spreading  it  among  the  populace, 
until  the  committee  have  made  their  report  to  the  Synod  ;  and  that 
no  other  member  take  notice  of,  or  divulge  the  affair.  The  above 
mentioned  committee  were  Messrs.  J.  Dickinson,  Pierson,  Pember- 
ton,  Thompson,  Anderson,  Boyd,  and  the  moderator  (Richard 
Treat)."  It  would  be  thought  rather  singular  for  any  Synod  in 
our  day  thus  to  lay  an  interdict  upon  theological  controversy.  In 
the  afternoon  of  the  day  on  which  they  Avere  appointed,  the  com- 
mittee reported  that  they  had  heard  Mr.  Tennent  and  Mr.  Cowell 
explain  themselves  on  the  points  in  debate,  and  requested  to  be 
allowed  to  report  to  the  next  Synod.  This  request  was  granted, 
and  Mr.  Robert  Cross  was  added  to  the  committee.*  The  next 
year  they  "  brought  in  the  following  overture,  which  being  read, 
the  Synod  had  the  great  satisfaction  to  find  that  the  contending 
parties  fully  agreed  in  their  sentiments  on  the  point  in  controversy, 
according  to  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  said  overture,  viz. 
Though  they  apprehend  that  there  are  some  incautious  and  un- 
guarded expressions  used  by  both  the  contending  parties,  yet  they 
have  ground  to  hope  that  the  principal  controversy  between  them 
flows  from  their  not  having  clear  ideas  of  the  subject  they  so  earn- 
estly debate  about,  and  not  from  any  dangerous  errors  they  enter- 
tain, since  they  both  own  that  the  glory  of  God  is  the  great  ulti- 
mate end  of  all  things.  And  as  the  point  under  debate  concerns 
an  important  doctrine  of  religion,  we  would  take  the  liberty  to  ex- 
press our  thoughts  with  respect  to  it,  in  a  few  words,  which  we 

*  Minutes,  p.  GO. 


198  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

hope  will  be  agreeable  to  the  sentiments  of  the  Synod,  and  readily 
agreed  to  by  the  parties  concerned  in  this  dispute.  We  apprehend 
that  the  glory  of  God  was  the  only  motive  that  influenced  him  to 
all  his  external  operations.  For  since  nothing  else  had  an  exist- 
ence, nothing  certainly  could  influence  him  from  without  himself. 
By  his  declarative  glory  we  mean  the  manifestation  of  his  essential 
and  adorable  perfections  for  the  great  and  excellent  ends  he  de- 
signed in  this  manifestation.  It  is  the  indispensable  duty  of  every 
creature,  according  to  its  utmost  capacity,  to  aim  at  the  same  end, 
which  the  blessed  God  has  in  view ;  and  to  endeavour  to  direct  all 
his  actions  unto  it.  The  method  in  which  the  great  God  has  re- 
quired us  to  prosecute  this  end  is  by  conformity  to  his  image  and 
example,  and  a  sincere  and  universal  obedience  to  his  laws.  In 
his  infinite  and  astonishing  grace  he  has  been  pleased  insepar- 
ably to  connect  our  happiness  with  the  prosecution  of  this  end. 
This  obedience  which  we  are  to  pay  to  the  divine  law,  and  by 
which  alone  we  can  glorify  him,  must  be  performed  by  us,  not 
only  because  it  is  the  way  to  happiness,  but  because  it  is  infinitely 
just  and  reasonable  in  itself,  agreeable  to  the  blessed  God,  whom 
we  are  under  indissoluble  obligations  to  obey  and  carry  on  the  same 
design  which  he  has  been  pleased  to  propose  in  all  his  actions. 
And  these  designs  of  the  glory  of  God  and  our  own  happiness  are 
so  inseparably  connected  that  they  must  never  be  placed  in  oppo- 
sition to  each  other.  For  in  all  cases,  he  that  actively  glorifies 
God  promotes  his  own  happiness,  and  by  a  conformity  to  the  divine 
statutes  and  laws,  which  is  the  only  way  to  happiness,  we,  in  the 
best  manner  we  are  capable  of,  glorify  God."  *  This  is  surely  sound 
doctrine.  The  glory  of  God  is  the  ultimate  end  of  all  things.  To 
promote  that  glory  is  the  highest  duty,  and  should  be  the  govern- 
ing purpose  of  all  intelligent  beings ;  and  their  own  happiness  is 
inseparably  connected  with  their  aiming  at  this  end,  and  being 
governed  by  this  motive.  This,  no  doubt,  was  the  doctrine  which 
Mr.  Tennent  had  so  much  at  heart.  He  was  satisfied  with  the 
Synod's  assertion  of  it,  though  he  was,  or  at  least  became,  greatly 
dissatisfied  that  the  opposite  doctrine,  that  happiness  was  the  grand 

*  Minutes,  p.  GG. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  199 

end  of  existence,  and  its  attainment  the  proper  governing  motive 
of  all  rational  creatures,  which  he  supposed  Mr.  Cowell  to  hold, 
was  not  more  pointedly  condemned. 

That  Mr.  Tennent  was  not  pleased  with  the  issue  of  this  dispute 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  when  the  minutes  were  read  at  the 
next  meeting  of  the  Synod,  he  moved  that  all  the  papers  relating 
to  the  controversy  should  be  read,  and  the  whole  subject  be  con- 
sidered by  the  Synod.  This  motion  after  considerable  debate  was 
rejected  by  a  large  majority.  This  no  doubt  increased  his  dissat- 
isfaction. The  following  year,  1740,  when  from  various  causes  he 
felt  constrained  to  read  before  the  Synod  a  paper  containing  his 
reasons  for  thinking  that  a  large  portion  of  his  brethren  were  un- 
converted men,  he  assigned  as  the  first  reason  "  Their  unsoundness 
in  some  of  the  principal  doctrines  of  Christianity  that  relate  to 
experience  and  practice ;  as  particularly  in  the  following  points ; 
First,  that  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  glory  of  God  and 
our  happiness  ;  that  self-love  is  the  foundation  of  all  obedience. 
These  doctrines,"  he  says,  "do  in  my  opinion  entirely  overset,  if 
true,  all  supernatural  religion  ;  render  regeneration  a  vain  and 
needless  thing ;  involve  a  crimson  blasphemy  against  the  blessed 
God,  by  putting  ourselves  upon  a  level  with  him.  Secondly,  that 
there  is  a  certainty  of  salvation  annexed  to  the  labours  of  natural 
men.  This  doctrine  in  my  opinion  supposes  the  greatest  falsehood, 
viz.  that  there  is  a  free  will  in  man  naturally  to  acceptable  good. 
...  As  these  opinions  are  contrary  to  the  express  testimony  of  holy 
Scripture,  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Christian  experience,  they 
give  me  reason  to  suspect,  at  least,  that  those  who  hold  them  are 
rotten-hearted  hypocrites,  and  utter  strangers  to  the  saving  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  of  their  own  hearts."  The  first  of  these  doc- 
trines was  the  one  involved  in  his  controversy  with  Mr.  Cowell. 
Why  he  should  charge  it  upon  the  Synod,  seeing  they  so  explicitly 
teach  the  opposite  doctrine  in  the  minute  above  cited,  does  not  ap- 
pear. As'to  the  second  point,  Mr.  Thompson,  in  his  reply  to  Mr. 
Tennent,  says  he  did  not  know  a  single  man  in  the  whole  Synod 
whom  he  even  suspected  of  holding  it.  How  strongly  Mr.  Ten- 
nent felt  on  this  subject  is  still  more  evident  from  a  subsequent 


200  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

charge  against  the  Synod,  viz.  that  they  had  so  much  "  more  zeal 
for  outward  order  than  for  the  main  points  of  practical  religion. 
Witness  the  committee  slighting  and  shuffling  the  late  debate  about 
the  glory  of  God,  and  their  present  contention  about  the  com- 
mittee-act ;"  (that  is,  the  act  for  the  examination  of  candidates  by 
a  committee  of  Synod.)  Considering  the  composition  of  the  com- 
mittee against  whom  this  complaint  is  directed,  and  the  character 
of  their  award,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  little  singular.  Had  this 
good  man  lived  in  our  day,  his  ardent  temper  could  hardly  have 
kept  within  bounds,  when  he  saw  the  doctrines  that  "  self-love  is 
the  foundation  of  all  obedience,"  and  that  "there  is  a  free  will  in 
man  to  acceptable  good,"  made  the  key-stone  of  a  whole  system 
of  theology.* 

There  is  scarcely  any  period  in  the  history  of  our  Church  more 
prolific  in  acts  and  overtures  than  the  one  now  under  consideration. 
These  acts  proceeded  in  nearly  equal  proportions  from  each  of  the 
two  parties  into  which  the  Synod  now  began  to  be  divided.  Neither 
party  questioned  the  right  of  the  Synod  to  make  such  acts,  as  both 
freely  availed  themselves  of  the  power.  Several  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  these  measures  are  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
great  schism  of  1741,  that  they  will  be  more  properly  considered  in 
detail,  in  connection  with  that  event,  though  chronologically  belong- 
ing to  the  present  period. 

In  the  minutes  for  1733,  there  is  the  following  record :  "  Upon 
an  overture  to  the  Synod  in  pursuance  of  an  order  of  the  com- 
mittee to  that  purpose,  viz. :  to  use  some  proper  means  to  revive 
the  declining  power  of  godliness,  the  Synod  do  earnestly  recom- 
mend it  to  all  ministers  and  members  to  take  particular  care  about 

*  The  former  of  these  doctrines  the  reader  may  see  presented  with  most 
revolting  plainness  in  the  closing  number  of  the  Christian  Spectator.  He  who 
reads  the  paper  in  that  number  on  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation  will 
cease  to  wonder  at  the  strong  language  of  Mr.  Tennent  in  relation  to  this 
point.  For  the  doctrine  that  the  ultimate  ground  of  moral  obligation  is  the 
tendency  of  virtue  to  promote  our  oicn  happiness ;  and  that  the  highest  reason 
why  we  are  bound  to  obey  God,  is,  that  he  is  wiser  than  we,  and  therefore 
knows  best  what  will  make  us  happy,  must  excite  abhorrence  in  every  pious 
heart,  whose  feelings  have  not  been  drugged  into  insensibility. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  201 

ministerial  visiting  of  families,  and  press  family  and  social  worship, 
according  to  the  Westminster  Directory  ;  and  they  also  recommend 
it  to  every  Presbytery  at  proper  seasons,  to  inquire  concerning  the 
diligence  of  each  of  their  members  in  such  particulars.  This  over- 
ture was  approved  nem.  con.  Ordered,  that  each  Presbytery  take 
a  copy  of  said  overture,  together  with  this  order,  and  insert  the 
same  in  their  Presbytery  books."* 

In  1735,  "  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  brought  some  overtures  into  the 
Synod  with  respect  to  trials  of  candidates  both  for  the  ministry 
and  for  the  Lord's  supper,  that  there  be  due  care  taken  to  examine 
into  the  evidences  of  the  grace  of  God  in  them,  as  well  as  of  their 
other  necessary  qualifications.  The  Synod  doth  unanimously  agree, 
'  That  as  it  has  been  our  principle  and  practice,  and  as  it  is  recom- 
mended in  the  Directory  for  worship  and  government,  to  be  careful 
in  this  matter,  so  it  awfully  concerns  us  to  be  most  serious  and 
solemn  in  trying  both  sorts  of  candidates  above  mentioned.  And 
this  Synod  does,  therefore,  in  the  name  and  fear  of  God,  exhort 
and  obtest  all  our  Presbyteries  to  take  special  care  not  to  admit 
into  the  sacred  office,  loose,  careless,  and  irreligious  persons,  but 
that  they  particularly  inquire  into  the  conversation,  conduct,  and 
behaviour  of  such  as  offer  themselves  to  the  ministry ;  and  that 
they  diligently  examine  all  the  candidates  for  the  ministry  in  their 
experience  of  a  work  of  sanctifying  grace  in  their  hearts ;  and  that, 
they  admit  none  to  the  sacred  trust  that  are  not,  in  the  eye  of 
charity,  serious  Christians.  And  the  Synod  does  also  seriously 
and  solemnly  admonish  all  the  ministers  within  our  bounds  to  make 
it  their  awful,  constant,  and  diligent  care  to  approve  themselves  to 
God,  to  their  own  consciences,  and  to  their  hearers,  serious,  faithful 
stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  and  of  holy  and  exemplary  con- 
versation. And  the  Synod  does  also  exhort  all  the  ministers  within 
our  bounds  to  use  due  care  in  examining  those  whom  they  admit  to 
the  Lord's  supper.  This  admonition  was  approved  by  the  whole 
Synod.  And  the  Synod  further  recommends  unanimously  to  all 
our  Presbyteries,  to  take  effectual  care  that  each  of  their  ministers 
is  faithful  in  the  discharge  of  his  awful  trust.      And  in  particular, 

*  See  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  26. 


202  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

that  they  frequently  examine  with  respect  to  their  members,  into 
their  life  and  conversation,  their  diligence  in  their  work,  and  their 
method  of  discharging  their  ministerial  calling  ;  particularly  that 
each  Presbytery  do,  at  least  once  a  year,  examine  into  the  manner 
of  each  minister's  preaching;  whether  he  insists  in  his  ministry 
upon  the  great  articles  of  Christianity,  and  in  the  course  of  his 
preaching  recommends  a  crucified  Saviour  to  his  hearers  as  the 
only  foundation  of  hope,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  omnipo- 
tent influences  of  Divine  grace  to  enable  them  to  accept  of  this 
Saviour ;  whether  he  does,  in  the  most  solemn  and  affecting  man- 
ner he  can,  endeavour  to  convince  his  hearers  of  their  lost  and 
perishing  state  whilst  unconverted,  and  put  them  upon  the  diligent 
use  of  those  means  necessary,  in  order  to  obtain  the  sanctifying 
influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  whether  he  does,  and  how  far  he 
does  discharge  his  duty  towards  the  young  people  and  children  of 
his  congregation,  in  a  way  of  catechizing  and  familiar  instruction ; 
whether  he  does,  and  in  what  manner  he  does  visit  his  flock  and 
instruct  them  from  house  to  house.  And  the  Synod  hereby  orders, 
that  a  copy  of  this  minute  be  inserted  in  the  books  of  each  of  our 
Presbyteries,  and  be  read  at  each  of  their  Presbyterial  meetings ; 
and  a  record  of  its  being  read  be  minuted  at  the  beginning  of 
every  session,  and  that  there  be  also  an  annual  record  in  each  Pres- 
bytery book  of  a  correspondence  with  this  minute.  And  in  case 
any  minister  within  our  bounds  shall  be  found  defective  in  any  of 
the  aforementioned  cases,  he  shall  be  subject  to  the  censure  of  the 
Presbytery ;  and  if  he  refuse  subjection  to  such  censure,  the  Pres- 
bytery are  hereby  directed  to  report  his  case  to  the  next  Synod. 
And  the  Synod  recommends  to  each  of  the  ministers  within  our 
bounds,  to  be  as  much  in  catechetical  doctrines  as  they  in  prudence 
may  think  proper."* 

It  is  obvious  that  neither  the  knowledge  nor  power  of  evangelical 

religion  could  be  dead  in  a  church  which  was  willing  and  able  to 
©  © 

issue  such  admonitions  as  the  above.  There  may  have  been,  and 
probably  was  a  great  declension  in  practical  religion,  but  there  was 
no  denial  of  evangelical  principles.     The  public  sentiment  of  the 

*  Minutes,  p.  31. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  203 

Church  must  have  been  in  favour  of  genuine  experimental  god- 
liness. The  above  overture  so  far  illustrates  the  relation  in  which 
the  Synod  stood  to  its  own  members  and  the  several  Presbyteries, 
as  it  contains  not  only  the  solemn  admonitions  of  the  governing 
body,  insisting  upon  the  performance  of  specific  duties,  but  direc- 
tions as  to  the  mode  of  their  performance,  and  requisitions  with 
which  the  Presbyteries  were  called  upon  to  comply.  That  these 
bodies  felt  these  orders  to  be  obligatory  upon  them,  is  obvious  from 
their  obedience.  This  overture  is  recorded  at  length  in  the  Pres- 
bytery book  of  Philadelphia ;  and  in  the  minutes  of  their  nextsub- 
sequent  meeting  it  is  stated,  "  the  minute  of  Synod  ordered  to  be 
recorded  in  the  Presbyteries,  was  read  according  to  order  of  Synod, 
and  by  proper  inquiries  of  the  several  members,  it  was  found  that 
the  design  of  the  said  minute  was  in  a  good  degree  complied  with." 
A  nearly  similar  entry  is  made  frequently  in  the  minutes  for  sub- 
sequent years.  That  the  Presbytery  of  East  Jersey  complied  with 
the  above  directions  appears  from  the  following  record  in  the 
synodical  book :  "  There  having  been  a  complaint  made  by  some 
members  of  the  Presbytery  of  East  Jersey,  that  the  Presbytery 
are  incapable  to  comply  with  the  excellent  design  of  the  act  of  the 
last  Synod  with  respect  to  the  trials  of  candidates  for  the  ministry, 
and  of  the  fidelity  of  their  own  members  in  the  discharge  of  their 
ministerial  trust,  by  reason  that  several  of  their  members,  and  Mr. 
John  Cross  in  particular,  neglected  to  attend  the  stated  meetings 
of  the  Presbytery ;  and  that  Mr.  John  Cross  has,  without  the  con- 
currence of  the  Presbytery,  removed  from  one  congregation  to  an- 
other :  the  Synod  do  declare  the  conduct  of  such  ministers  as  do 
neglect  attendance  on  the  meetings  of  the  Presbytery  without 
necessity,  or  that  take  charge  of  any  congregation  without  the 
Presbytery's  concurrence,  to  be  disorderly,  and  justly  worthy  of 
Presbyterial  censure,  and  do  admonish  said  Mr.  Cross  to  be  no 
further  chargeable  with  such  irregularities  for  the  future."* 

How  Mr.  Tennent  regarded  this  matter,  and  what  authority  he 
attributed  to  the  act  of  Synod,  may  be  inferred  from  what  he  says 
in  the  paper  read  to  that  body  in  1740,  and  before  referred  to.     He 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  36. 


204  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

therein  complains  of  some  of  his  brethren  for  "  setting  out  men  to 
the  ministry  without  so  much  as  examining  them  about  their 
Christian  experiences,  notwithstanding  of  a  lace  canon  of  this 
Synod  enjoining  the  same.  How  contrary  is  this  practice  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  our  Directory,  and  of  how  dangerous  tendency 
to  the  Church  of  God  !  Is  it  probable  that  truly  gracious  persons 
would  thus  slight  the  precious  souls  of  men  ?"* 

In  the  year  1734,  the  following  order  was  inserted  on  the 
minutes  :  "  The  Synod  determines  that  no  minister  of  our  persua- 
sion, in  the  government  of  Pennsylvania,  or  the  lower  counties, 
from  this  time  forward,  marry  by  any  license  from  the  government, 
till  the  form  of  them  be  altered  and  brought  into  a  nearer  conform- 
ity to  those  of  the  neighbouring  governments  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  and  particularly  till  they  are  altered  in  such  a  manner 
as  hath  no  peculiar  respect  to  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, nor  oblige  us  to  any  of  the  forms  and  ceremonies  peculiar  to 
that  Church.  And  we  do  further  agree  to  refer  it  to  the  Presby- 
teries of  New  Castle  and  Donegal,  to  make  what  regulations  they 
see  cause  for  upon  the  affair  of  licenses  with  respect  to  their  own 
members."  In  1735,  it  is  recorded  that  "upon  reading  last  year's 
minutes  relating  to  marriages  by  licenses,  it  is  supposed  there  may 
be  some  exempt  instances,  wherein  the  restraints  of  that  act  may 
be  found  too  severe.  The  Synod,  therefore,  order  that  each  parti- 
cular Presbytery  shall  have  full  liberty  to  determine  upon,  and  direct 
in  such  exempt  cases  as  they  shall  think  convenient,  provided  always 
that  no  minister  within  our  bounds  shall  be  allowed  to  marry  by 
license  any  members  of  our  established  congregations,  or  others 
known  to  be  of  our  communion,  without  certificates  from  the  minis- 
ters of  such  congregations ;  or  in  case  of  the  absence  of  the  minis- 
ter, or  of  the  congregation's  being  without  a  minister,  from  some 
other  substantial  persons,  that  such  marriage  is  regular,  and  that 
there  is  no  just  bar  in  the  way  of  it."f  The  Synod  it  seems  felt 
no  hesitation  in  assuming  the  right  to  control  all  its  members  in  the 
exercise  of  one  of  their  official  functions  ;  or,  when  the  rule  pre- 

*  Quoted  by  Mr.  Thompson  in  his  Government  of  the  Church,  p.  20. 
\  Minutes,  pp  32,  36. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  205 

scribed  was  found  too  strict,  to  order  that  the  several  Presbyteries 
"  should  have  full  liberty"  to  determine  what  cases  should  be  ex- 
empted from  its  operation. 

In  the  following  year  we  find  a  still  more  extraordinary  record. 
"  Upon  motion  made  by  a  member,  the  Synod  do  agree  that  if  any 
of  our  members  shall  see  cause  to  prepare  any  thing  for  the  press 
upon  any  controversy  in  religious  matters,  before  such  member 
publish  what  he  hath  thus  prepared,  he  shall  submit  the  same  to  be 
perused  by  persons  appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  that  Messrs. 
Andrews,  Dickinson,  Robert  Cross,  Pemberton,  and  Pierson,  be 
appointed  for  this  purpose  in  the  bounds  of  the  Synod  to  the  north- 
ward of  Philadelphia  ;  and  Messrs.  Anderson,  Thomas  Evans,  Cath- 
cart,  Stevenson,  and  Thompson,  in  the  bounds  of  the  Synod  to  the 
southward  of  Philadelphia.  Approved."*  Here  then  is  an  actual 
censorship  of  the  press.  This  is  almost  equal  to  the  Presbyterian- 
ism  of  France ;  where  the  national  Synods  made  and  enforced 
similar  regulations. f  All  the  gentlemen  above  named,  except  Mr. 
Pierson,  were  present  at  this  meeting  of  the  Synod ;  and  yet  no 
protest  against  what  we  should  regard  as  a  most  extraordinary 
stretch  of  Sy nodical  power  is  even  hinted  ;  and  no  refusal  of  Mr.  An- 
drews, Mr.  Dickinson,  Mr.  Evans,  or  Mr.  Pemberton,  to  act  on  such 
a  committee,  and  thus  sanction  the  legality  of  its  appointment. 
Surely  they  must  be  under  a  delusion,  who,  in  their  aspirations 
after  advisory  councils,  long  for  the  return  of  the  early  days  of 
our  Church. 

The  same  year,  (1736,)  a  long  overture  was  introduced,  no  doubt, 
judging  from  the  style  and  sentiments,  by  Mr.  Thompson,  against 
heresy.  It  alludes  particularly  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Hemphill,  who 
had  been  unanimously  disowned  by  the  Synod,  as  before  stated. 
It  urges,  "  seeing  we  are  likely  to  have  most  of  our  supply  of  minis- 
ters to  fill  our  vacancies,  from  the  north  of  Ireland,  and  seeing  it 
is  too  plain  to  be  denied  or  called  in  question  that  we  are  in  danger 
of  being  imposed  upon  by  ministers  and  preachers  from  thence, 
though  sufficiently  furnished  with  all  the  formalities  of  Presbyterial 
credentials,"  the  adoption  of  various  expedients  for  guarding  against 

*  Minutes,  p.  38.  f  Quick's  Synodicon,  vol.  ii.  pp.  Ill  &  349. 


206  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  danger.  It  also  testifies  against  the  custom  of  some  of  the 
Irish  Presbyteries  of  ordaining  men  sine  titulo  before  they  come  to 
this  country,  thus  depriving  the  Presbyteries  here  of  their  right  of 
judging  of  their  fitness  for  the  sacred  office.  In  consequence  of 
this  overture  it  is  recorded :  "  The  Synod  do  agree  that  no  minister 
ordained  in  Ireland  sine,  titulo  be  received  to  the  exercise  of  the 
ministry  among  us,  until  he  submit  to  such  trials  as  the  Presbytery 
among  whom  he  resides  shall  think  proper  to  order  and  appoint, 
and  the  Synod  do  also  advertise  the  general  Synod  in  Ireland,  that 
their  ordaining  any  such  sine  titulo  before  their  sending  them  hither 
for  the  future,  will  be  very  disagreeable  and  disobliging  to  us.  And 
the  Synod  do  appoint  Messrs.  Robert  Cross,  John  Thompson,  and 
Joseph  Houston,  to  send  the  above  overture  and  appointment  to  the 
general  Synod  in  Ireland,  inclosed  in  a  proper  letter  unto  them."* 
On  a  subsequent  page  it  is  stated  that  "  inquiry  being  made  of 
the  several  Presbyteries  whether  they  had  complied  with  an  order 
of  Synod,  touching  the  admission  of  foreign  ministers  and  candi- 
dates that  come  from  Europe,  it  was  found  that  the  order  has  been 
complied  with."  It  is  evident  from  the  above  overture,  and  from 
various  other  sources,  that  the  Irish  members  in  their  zeal  against 
error  were  not  actuated  by  any  sectional  jealousies.  Their  efforts 
were  directed  against  their  own  countrymen.  There  was  no  desire 
to  gain  or  confirm  an  ascendency  in  the  Synod  for  men  of  their 
own  origin.  The  very  persons  most  prominent  in  these  measures 
are  found  writing  urgent  letters  to  New  England  for  suitable  minis- 
ters to  supply  their  vacant  churches.  Under  these  circumstances 
it  is  impossible  to  question  either  the  sincerity  of  their  professions, 
or  the  purity  of  their  motives. 

In  1737,  an  overture  was  introduced  and  approved  in  reference 
to  itinerant  preachers.  This  act  forbad  a  licentiate  to  preach  in 
any  vacant  congregation  without  the  order  of  the  Presbytery  to 
which  he  belonged,  or  of  the  Presbytery  under  whose  care  the  con- 
gregation was  placed.  It  forbad  also  the  congregations  to  invite 
any  minister  or  probationer  without  the  concurrence  of  their  Pres- 
bytery ;  f  &c.     In  the  following  year  this  order  was  so  modified  a-s 

*  Minutes,  p.  40.  f  Ibid.   p.  54. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  207 

to  forbid  any  minister  belonging  to  the  Synod  "  to  preach  in  any 
congregation  belonging  to  another  Presbytery,"  after  being  warned 
by  any  member  of  the  Presbytery  that  his  so  preaching  would  be 
likely  to  cause  division.  To  this  was  added  the  explanation,  that 
this  prohibition  by  one  member  was  to  be  merely  temporary.  If 
the  Presbytery  to  which  the  congregation  belonged  gave  the  stran- 
ger liberty  to  preach,  he  might  do  so.  Thus  explained,  it  was 
agreed  to  nemine  contraclicente*  In  1739,  it  is  stated  that  "The 
act  made  last  year  with  respect  to  ministers  preaching  out  of  their 
own  bounds  being  taken  under  a  review,  the  Synod  determine  that 
if  any  minister  in  the  bounds  of  any  of  our  Presbyteries  judge 
that  the  preaching  of  any  minister  or  candidate  of  a  neighboring 
Presbytery  has  had  a  tendency  to  promote  division  among  them, 
he  shall  complain  to  the  Presbytery  in  whose  bounds  the  said  con- 
gregation is ;  and  that  the  minister  who  is  supposed  to  be  the  cause 
of  the  aforesaid  division  shall  be  obliged  to  appear  before  them, 
and  it  shall  be  left  to  them  to  determine  whether  he  shall  preach 
any  more  in  the  bounds  of  that  congregation  ;  and  he  shall  be 
bound  to  stand  to  their  determination,  until  they  shall  see  cause  to 
remove  their  prohibition  ;  or  the  Synod  shall  have  an  opportunity 
to  take  the  affair  under  cognizance.  Approved  nem.  con." f  In 
1 740,  the  Synod  say  that  although  this  agreement  had  at  the  time 
it  was  passed  met  with  universal  acceptance,  yet  as  some  of  the 
brethren  had  become  dissatisfied  with  it,  and  some  of  their  people 
misinterpreted  it,  supposing  it  to  be  intended  against  all  itinerant 
preaching,  they  agreed  to  repeal  it,  and  thus  avoid  all  contention 
on  the  subject. | 

This  act  is  not  so  much  an  illustration  of  the  power  of  the 
Synod,  as  it  is  a  declaration,  and  enforcing  the  rights  of  Presby- 
teries. It  merely  provided  that  no  man  should  preach  in  any  con- 
gregation against  the  will  of  the  Presbytery  under  whose  care  such 
congregation  was  placed.  This  is  a  principle  fully  recognized  in 
our  present  constitution.  If  a  congregation  is  vacant,  it  applies 
to  the  Presbytery  for  supplies,  or  obtains  permission  to  fill  its  own 
pulpit.  That  the  Presbytery  has  the  right  to  watch  over  and  pro- 
*  Minutes,  p.  58.  f  Ibid.  p.  66.  %  Ibid.  p.  72. 


208  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

vide  for  the  religious  instruction  of  its  churches  is  one  of  the  most 
familiar  principles  of  our  form  of  government.  It  very  clearly 
shows  at  once  the  agitation  existing  in  those  clays,  and  the  modera- 
tion of  Synod,  that  they  were  willing  to  waive  this  principle, 
though  twice  unanimously  sanctioned,  for  the  sake  of  peace.  The 
opposition  to  this  rule  seems  to  have  proceeded  principally  from 
Mr.  Tennent.  No  man  was,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  more 
disposed  than  that  gentleman  to  enforce  the  obligation  of  such 
rules,  and  even  to  push  them  to  extremes.  But  when  he  thought 
they  stood  in  the  way  of  the  interests  of  religion,  he  trampled 
them  under  his  feet.  To  create  a  division  in  the  congregation  of 
a  converted  pastor,  or  to  preach  against  his  consent  within  his 
bounds,  was,  in  his  eyes,  a  high  ecclesiastical  offence.  But  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  people  of  a  graceless  minister,  in  despite 
of  his  remonstrances,  was  a  matter  of  duty  ;  and  he  would  have 
done  it,  in  despite  of  all  the  Synods  in  the  world.  In  this  he  was 
clearly  right,  as  far  as  the  principle  is  concerned.  There  are  obli- 
gations superior  to  those  of  mere  ecclesiastical  order ;  and  there 
are  times  when  it  is  a  duty  to  disregard  rules,  which  we  admit  to 
be  legitimate  both  in  their  own  nature,  and  in  respect  to  the  au- 
thority whence  they  proceed.  It  was  on  this  principle  that  the 
apostles  and  the  reformers  acted.  It  is  analogous  to  the  right  of 
revolution  in  civil  communities ;  and  consequently  the  cases  are 
very  rare  in  which  it  can  be  resorted  to,  with  a  good  conscience. 
Because  the  reformers  rightfully  trampled  on  the  ecclesiastical  au- 
thorities to  which  they  were  subject,  it  does  not  follow  that  every 
wandering  evangelist,  who  thinks  that  he  is  a  better  man  or  better 
preacher  than  his  brethren,  may  properly  enter  into  parishes,  di- 
vide congregations,  and  unsettle  pastors  at  pleasure.  Whether 
Mr.  Tennent  was  right  in  applying  his  principle  in  the  way  he  did, 
is  a  very  difficult  question,  which  belongs  properly  to  a  subsequent 
period  of  our  history. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  same  circumstances  which  called 
forth  this  act  of  the  Synod,  under  the  different  system  of  the  Connec- 
ticut churches,  led  to  the  interference  of  the  civil  authorities.  In 
May  1742,  the  General  Assembly  of  Connecticut  passed  a  law,  in 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  209 

which,  after  a  long  preamble,  they  enacted  that  any  settled  minis- 
ter who  should  preach  within  the  parish  of  another  minister,  un- 
less invited  by  the  latter  and  by  the  major  part  of  the  people, 
should  be  deprived  of  all  the  benefit  of  the  law  for  the  support  of 
the  clergy ;  that  if  any  one,  not  a  minister  or  licentiate,  should 
teach  or  exhort  in  any  parish,  without  being  properly  invited,  he 
should  be  bound  over  in  the  penal  sum  of  one  hundred  pounds ; 
and  if  any  stranger  not  an  inhabitant  of  the  colony  should  trans- 
gress in  like  manner  he  was  to  be  sent  as  a  vagrant  from  constable 
to  constable  out  of  the  bounds  of  the  colony.* 

In  the  year  1738,  the  Presbytery  of  Lewes  brought  in  an  over- 
ture respecting  the  examination  of  candidates  for  the  ministry. 
After  reciting  the  various  disadvantages  under  which  such  candi- 
dates then  laboured  in  the  prosecution  of  their  studies,  and  the 
dangers  arising  from  the  admission  of  uneducated  men  into  the 
ministry,  it  proposed  that  the  Synod  should  agree  that  all  the  Pres- 
byteries should  require  every  candidate,  before  being  taken  upon 
trial,  to  be  furnished  with  a  diploma  from  some  European  or  New 
England  college ;  or  in  case  he  had  not  enjoyed  the  advantage  of 
a  college  education,  he  should  be  examined  by  a  committee  of 
Synod,  who  should  give  him  a  certificate  of  competent  scholarship, 
when  they  found  him  to  merit  it.  This  overture  was  approved  by 
a  great  majority ;  and  Messrs.  John  Thompson,  George  Gillespie, 
James  Anderson,  Thomas  Evans,  Henry  Hook,  James  Martin,  and 
Francis  Allison,  were  appointed  the  committee  of  examination  for 
the  Presbyteries  to  the  south  of  Philadelphia  ;  and  Messrs.  An- 
drews, Robert  Cross,  G.  Tennent,  E.  Pemberton,  J.  Dickinson,  D. 
Cowell,  and  J.  Pierson  for  the  Presbyteries  to  the  north  of  Phila- 
delphia.f 

In  1739,  "  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  having  brought  a 
paper  of  objections  against  the  act  of  last  year,  touching  the  pre- 
vious examination  of  candidates,  the  Synod  consented  to  review 


*  Trumbull's  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  162-4.  For  this  law  the  Association  of 
New  Haven  county  tendered  their  hearty  thanks  to  the  Assembly,  and  prayed 
that  it  might  be  continued  in  force.  f  Minutes,  p.  61. 

14 


210  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

that  act,  and  upon  deliberation  agreed  to  the  following  overture, 
which  they  substitute  in  the  place  of  it,  viz. :  It  being  the  first 
article  in  our  excellent  Directory  for  the  examination  of  candidates 
for  the  sacred  ministry,  that  they  be  inquired  of  what  degrees  they 
have  taken  in  the  university,  &c. ;  and  it  being  oftentimes  imprac- 
ticable for  us  in  these  remote  parts  of  the  earth,  to  obtain  an  an- 
swer to  these  questions  of  those  who  propose  themselves  for  ex- 
amination, many  of  our  candidates  not  having  enjoyed  the  advan- 
tage of  an  university  education  ;  and  it  being  our  desire  to  come 
to  the  nearest  conformity  to  the  incomparable  prescriptions  of  the 
Directory  that  our  circumstances  will  admit  of;  and  after  long  de- 
liberation of  the  most  proper  expedients  to  comply  with  the  inten- 
tions of  the  Directory  where  we  cannot  exactly  fulfil  the  letter  of 
it,  the  Synod  agree  and  determine  that  every  person  who  proposes 
himself  for  trial  as  a  candidate  for  the  ministry,  and  who  has  not 
a  diploma  or  the  usual  certificate  from  an  European  or  New  Eng- 
land university,  shall  be  examined  by  the  whole  Synod,  or  its  com- 
mission, as  to  those  preparatory  studies  which  are  generally  passed 
through  at  the  college,  and  if  they  find  him  qualified,  shall  give 
him  a  certificate  which  shall  be  received  by  our  respective  Presby- 
teries as  equivalent  to  a  diploma  or  certificate  from  the  college. 
This,  we  trust,  will  have  a  happy  tendency  to  prevent  unqualified 
men  from  creeping  in  among  us,  and  answer,  in  the  best  manner 
our  present  circumstances  are  capable  of,  the  design  which  our  Di- 
rectory has  in  view,  and  to  which  by  inclination  and  duty  Ave  are  all 
bound  to  comply  to  our  utmost  ability.  This  was  agreed  to  by  a 
great  majority."  * 

Against  the  above  act,  Messrs.  Gilbert  Tennent,  William  Ten- 
nent,  Sen.,  William  Tennent,  Jun.,  Charles  Tennent,  Samuel  Blair, 
and  Eleazar  Wales,  together  with  four  elders,  protested.  It  is  stated 
in  the  minutes  of  the  next  year,  that  various  proposals  were  made 
with  the  view  of  reconciling  these  protesting  brethren.  As  these 
efforts  were  not  successful,  "the  Synod,"  it  is  said,  "still  desiring 
that  that  unhappy  difference  may  be  accommodated,  recommend  it 
to  any  brethren  of  the  Synod  to  consider  any  further  expedient  to 

*  Minutes,  p.  66. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  211 

that  end,  to  be  brought  in  at  the  next  sederunt."  What  these 
expedients  were,  the  records  do  not  inform  us.  Two  of  them  may 
be  learned  from  other  sources.  Mr.  Dickinson  proposed  that 
"  there  should,  by  consent  of  both  parties,  be  drawn  up  a  fair  re- 
presentation of  the  state  of  the  case  debated,  and  sent  to  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  or  their  commission  ;  to 
the  general  Synod  of  Ireland  or  their  commission ;  or  to  the  min- 
isters of  our  profession  in  London  or  Boston,  to  obtain  their  judg- 
ment or  advice."*  This  proposal  was  rejected  by  Mr.  Tennent, 
because,  besides  other  reasons,  the  persons  specified  were  mostly 
"dead  formalists. "f  Another  expedient  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Gil- 
lespie, which  at  first  seemed  likely  to  succeed.  He  proposed,  "  that 
if  a  Presbytery  admit  a  man,  they  shall  report  his  trials  to  the 
Synod  for  their  satisfaction  on  his  taking  his  seat.  When  Mr.  Ten- 
nent was  asked  by  Mr.  Dickinson,  whether,  in  case  of  the  Synod's 
dissatisfaction,  he  would  allow  a  re-examination  or  censure,  he  said, 
No.  He  would  consent  to  the  Presbytery  being  censured,  but  not 
to  the  candidate  being  examined  or  censured.  The  matter  was  then 
dropped,  as  Mr.  Tennent  claimed  the  right  of  imposing  what  mem- 
bers he  pleased  upon  the  Synod.  "J  After  these  and  other  efforts 
for  an  accommodation  had  failed,  "  it  was  put  to  vote  whether  the 
said  agreement  (about  candidates)  should  be  repealed,  or  continued 
until  some  other  expedient  could  be  found  to  the  Synod's  satisfac- 
tion ;  and  it  was  voted  that  it  continue  at  present.  The  protesting 
brethren  renewed  their  former  protest,"  and  were  joined  by  Mr. 
John  Cross  and  Mr.  Alexander  Creaghead,  ministers,  and  eleven 
elders.  The  Rev.  George  Gillespie,  and  the  Rev.  Alexander  Huche- 
son  dissented. §     The  Synod  then  passed  the  following  explanatory 

*  See  Protest  presented  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  June  1,  1741.  Printed 
and  sold  by  Benjamin  Franklin,  1741.  In  the  preface  to  this  Protest  the  above 
fact  is  stated. 

f  Remarks  on  the  Protest  examined  and  answered,  p.  12.  J  Ibid.  16. 

\  Minutes,  p.  72.  The  names  of  the  ministers  and  elders  are  not  distin- 
guished in  the  above  minute.  By  a  reference  to  the  list  of  members  at  the 
opening  of  the  Synod,  it  is  ascertained  that  the  only  additional  clerical  pro- 
testers were  Mr.  Cross  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  and  Mr.  Alexan- 
der Creaghead  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal. 


212  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

declaration  :  "  That  they  do  not  hereby  call  in  question  the  right 
of  inferior  Presbyteries  to  ordain  ministers,  but  only  assert  their 
own  right  to  judge  of  the  qualification  of  their  own  members ;  and 
though  they  do  not  deny  but  that  such  as  are  brought  into  the 
ministry  contrary  to  this  agreement,  may  be  truly  gospel  ministers, 
yet,  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  but  think  the  said  agreement  needful 
to  be  insisted  on  in  order  to  the  well-being  of  this  part  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  they  cannot  admit  them,  when  so  brought  into 
the  ministry,  to  be  members  of  this  Synod,  until  they  submit  to  the 
said  agreement,  though  they  do  consent  that  they  be  in  all  other 
respects  treated  and  considered  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel ;  any 
thing  that  they  be  otherwise  construed  in  any  of  our  former  pro- 
ceedings notwithstanding." 

As  this  act  was  the  immediate  occasion  of  the  schism  which 
occurred  in  1741,  the  consideration  of  it,  as  a  constitutional  ques- 
tion, must  be  reserved  until  the  causes  and  merits  of  that  great 
controversy  come  to  be  examined.  It  may,  however,  be  remarked 
here,  what  indeed  cannot  fail  to  attract  the  reader's  attention,  that 
the  opposition  to  this  measure  was  not  so  much  of  an  ecclesiastical 
as  of  a  religious  character ;  that  is,  it  did  not  arise  so  much  from 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  pOwer  of  the  Synod,  as  from  the 
supposed  bearing  of  the  act  upon  the  interests  of  religion.  This 
is  evident  from  the  character  of  its  opponents.  They  were  all, 
unless  Mr.  Wales  be  an  exception,  Irishmen  or  Scotchmen.*  That 
the  New  England  members  took  side  with  the  majority  in  all  this 
matter,  appears  from  the  absence  of  their  names  from  the  list  of 
either  protestants  or  dissenters ;  from  the  open  effort  of  Mr.  Dick- 

*  This  remark  refers  of  course  only  to  the  clergymen.  The  four  Tennents 
and  Mr.  Blair  were  Irish  ;  so  it  is  believed  was  Mr.  John  Cross.  Mr.  Alex 
ander  Creaghead,  (who  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  Mr.  Thomas  Creaghead,) 
soon  after  this  time  became  a  Cameronian.  These,  together  with  Mr.  Wales, 
whose  origin  is  not  known,  were  all  the  protesters.  The  two  dissentients, 
Messrs.  Gillespie  and  Ilucheson,  were  both  Scotchmen.  Mr.  Gillespie  is  the 
gentleman  to  whom  Dr.  Hill  refers  when  he  says  "even  Gillespie,  &c,"  with 
the  design  of  showing  that  in  the  lowest  depths  of  Presbyterianism,  a  lower 
still  might  be  found.  It  may  fairly  be  inferred,  therefore,  that  the  opposition 
in  which  Mr.  Gillespie  joined,  did  not  arise  from  any  lack  of  Presbyterianism. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  213 

inson  to  conciliate  Mr.  Tennent's  consent  to  some  compromise ; 
and  especially  from  the  fact  that  when  the  Synod  of  New  York 
was  formed,  to  which  the  New  England  members  in  the  general 
attached  themselves,  it  was  made  one  of  its  fundamental  principles, 
that  the  Synod  should  be  obeyed.  This  provision,  which  has 
already  been  referred  to,  and  which  subsequently  was  incorporated 
into  the  terms  of  union  between  the  two  Synods,  was  evidently 
intended  to  meet  just  such  cases  as  the  present.  It  stated  that  if 
any  member  could  not  with  a  good  conscience,  either  actively  con- 
cur in,  or  passively  submit  to,  any  determination  of  the  Synod,  he 
should  peaceably  withdraw,  without  attempting  to  make  any  schism, 
provided  the  Synod  insisted  upon  their  determination  as  essential 
to  their  doctrine  or  government.  In  reference  to  the  act  about 
itinerant  preachers,  the  Synod,  though  the  matter  had  twice  been 
unanimously  concurred  in,  and  though  clearly  in  the  right,  declined 
to  insist,  when  they  saw  the  opposition  springing  up  among  some 
of  their  members  and  people.  In  relation  to  the  act  about  the 
examination  of  candidates,  they  first  adopted  a  modification,  then 
proposed  one  expedient  after  another  for  a  compromise,  but  refused 
to  give  it  up.  As  the  other  party  thought  they  could  not,  with  a 
good  conscience,  yield,  a  division  became  inevitable,  and  it  there- 
fore took  place,  though  not  in  the  Christian  manner  in  which  the 
article  just  referred  to  afterwards  provided  for.  This  schism,  how- 
ever, never  would  have  taken  place,  neither  party  would  have  been 
so  unyielding,  had  they  not,  in  a  great  measure,  lost  their  confidence 
in  each  other,  and  become  embittered  in  their  feelings. 

The  motive  therefore  of  Mr.  Tennent's  opposition  to  this  act  was 
not  dislike  of  the  ecclesiastical  principle  on  which  it  was  founded, 
but  dislike  of  the  object  at  which  he  thought  it  aimed.  He  believed 
it  was  adapted,  and  probably  designed,  to  keep  evangelical  men  out 
of  the  ministry,  and  therefore  he  would  not  submit  to  it.*  The  argu- 
ments by  which  he  and  his  friends  justified  their  opposition ;  the 

*  In  a  letter  from  the  Synod  to  President  Clapp  of  Yale  College,  it  is  stated 
when  this  act  was  passed,  "  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  cried  out,  that  this  was  to 
prevent  his  father's  school  from  training  gracious  men  for  the  ministry." 
Minutes,  vol.  iii.  p.  17. 


214  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ecclesiastical  principles  which  they  advocated,  how  far  these  differ, 
or  whether  they  differed  at  all  from  those  of  their  opponents,  are 
questions  which  belong  to  a  subsequent  period  of  our  history.  It 
would  be  strange  if  Gillespie,  Hucheson,  and  Creaghead,  who  sided 
more  or  less  with  Mr.  Tennent,  held  a  more  lax  system  of  Presby- 
terianism  than  Dickinson,  Pemberton,  and  Pierson,  who  as  far  as 
appears,  were  on  the  other  side.  The  reader  will  not,  of  course, 
confound  the  question  as  to  the  validity  of  the  act  respecting  the 
examination  of  candidates,  with  the  propriety  of  the  exclusion  of 
the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  by  a  simple  protest.  Many  who 
sanctioned  the  former  measure,  remonstrated  against  the  latter. 

The  review  of  the  whole  period  which  has  now  been  passed 
over,  must,  it  is  believed,  lead  the  reader  to  at  least  the  three  fol- 
lowing conclusions. 

First,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  does 
not  owe  its  existence  to  Congregationalists.  From  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  to  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Presby- 
terians were  the  most  numerous  class  of  emigrants  to  this  country, 
and  probably  more  numerous  than  all  other  classes  combined.  Our 
church  is  but  one  branch  of  this  extended  Presbyterian  family, 
and  owes  its  origin  to  the  English,  Scotch,  and  Irish  Presbyterians, 
who  sought  on  these  shores  a  refuge  from  the  persecutions  or  penury 
which  awaited  them  at  home.  The  Congregationalists  who  asso- 
ciated with  them,  who  were  few  in  number,  ceased  to  be  Congrega- 
tionalists. They  entered  the  church  under  the  name  and  with  the 
profession  of  Presbyterians,  promising  "  to  submit  to  Presbyterian 
rules." 

Second,  that  our  Church  was,  during  this  whole  period,  strictly 
and  properly  Presbyterian.  There  was  less  irregularity  in  the 
organization  of  the  congregations  than  among  the  churches  of  Scot- 
land during  the  corresponding  period  of  their  history.  The  great 
majority  of  our  ministers  were  presbyterially  educated  and  ordained. 
The  Presbytery  and  Synod  not  only  exercised  uniformly  and  with- 
out opposition  all  the  powers  which  are  now  recognized  as  belonging 
to  such  bodies,  but  in  many  respects  greatly  exceeded  them.  In 
all  the  particulars  in  which  they  differed  from  the  Presbyteries  and 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  215 

Synods  of  the  present  day,  they  conformed  to  the  principles  and 
usages  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

Third,  that  assent  to  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  has  always  been  a  condition  of 
ministerial  communion  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Before  1729, 
this  was,  in  effect,  the  case ;  after  that  time,  it  was  the  publicly  as- 
serted and  uniformly  enforced  condition  of  admission  into  the  minis- 
try in  our  communion. 


END    OF    PART    I. 


THE 


CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 


BY 

CHARLES    HODGE,  D.  P.. 

OROFES80B    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    8EMINART,    PRINCETON,    NEW    JEHBB% 


PART  II. 

1741    to   1788. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

PRESBYTERIAN   BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION 

AND  SABBATH-SCHOOL  WORK, 

No.  1334  CHESTNUT   STREET. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1851,  by 

A.    W.    MITCHELL,    M.  D., 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District 
of  Pennsylvania. 


PBEFACE. 


The  design  of  this  history  is  to  exhibit  the  character  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.  To  accom- 
plish this  object,  it  was  necessary  to  bring  to  view,  not  only  the 
declarations,  but  the  acts  of  its  highest  judicatory.  The  work  has 
thus  become  rather  a  history  of  the  Synod,  than  of  the  whole 
church,  and  does  not  pretend  to  enter  into  those  details  which 
would  be  necessary  in  a  more  comprehensive  work.  Those  contro- 
versies, however,  which  affected  the  auction  of  the  Synod,  come 
legitimately  within  the  scope  of  this  history.  Hence  an  account 
of  the  great  revival  which  occurred  towards  the  middle  of  the  last 
century,  was  necessary,  in  order  to  render  intelligible  the  history 
of  the  dissensions  which  agitated  and  ultimately  divided  the 
Synod.  To  that  revival,  therefore,  the  introductory  chapter  of  the 
present  volume  is  devoted.  The  principal  sources  of  information 
on  this  subject,  to  which  the  writer  has  had  access,  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  Prince's  Christian  History,  in  two  volumes,  a  contempora- 
neous work,  originally  published  in  numbers,  containing  accounts 
of  the  revival  in  this  country  and  in  Scotland,  written,  in  general, 
by  the  pastors  of  the  churches  in  which  the  revival  occurred  ; 
Gillies'  Collections,  which,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  this  country,  is 
principally  a  reprint  of  the  former  work  ;  Whitefield's  Life  and 
Journals ;  Edwards's  Life,  Correspondence,  and  Sermons ;  Chaun- 
cey's  Seasonable  Thoughts,  another  contemporaneous  work,  con- 

(iii) 


IV  PREFACE. 

taining  the  dark  side  of  the  picture ;  Fisk's  nine  sermons,  preached 
in  Stonington  after  the  revival,  and  containing  many  valuable 
historical  details;  Trumbull's  History  of  Connecticut;  President 
Dickinson's  Works;  Works  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Blair.  Besides 
these,  there  are  a  great  many  smaller  works,  principally  pamphlets, 
for  and  against  the  men  and  measures  of  those  days,  quoted  and 
referred  to  in  the  following  pages,  which  need  not  be  particularly 
mentioned  here. 

The  authorities  relied  upon  for  the  account  given  of  the  schism, 
besides  the  official  records  of  the  Synod,  which  themselves  contain 
much  of  the  history,  are  the  contemporaneous  works  of  the  lead- 
ing men  of  the  two  parties.  As  the  controversy  ostensibly  arose 
out  of  the  disregard,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Bruns- 
wick, of  two  acts  of  the  Synod,  the  Apology  of  that  Presbytery 
presented  in  1739,  for  their  conduct,  stands  first  in  order.  The 
only  copy  of  that  work,  of  which  the  writer  has  any  knowledge, 
is  in  the  library  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  at  Worce- 
ster ;  for  the  use  of  which  he  is  indebted  to  the  kind  interven- 
tion of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Anderson  of  Boston.  The  greater  part  of 
the  Apology,  however,  is  reprinted  in  Mr.  Thompson's  Govern- 
ment of  the  Church  of  Christ,  published  in  1741,  where,  accord- 
ing to  the  good  old  method  of  controversy,  it  is  quoted  in  order  to 
its  being  refuted.  Mr.  Thompson's  strictures  on  the  Apology 
were  answered  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  in  his  vindication  of  the 
New  Brunswick  brethren,  contained  in  the  printed  volume  of  his 
works.  In  1740,  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  and  Mr.  Samuel  Blair  pre- 
sented to  the  Synod  two  memorials  containing  various  complaints 
against  their  brethren.  These  memorials  are  given  at  length  in 
Mr.  Thompson's  work  above-mentioned.  This  latter  work,  there- 
fore, is  itself  one  of  the  most  important  books  relating  to  this 
period  of  our  history,  embracing  as  it  does  the  views  of  both  par- 
ties as  to  most  of  the  points  in  controversy.  It  was  before  the 
schism  also  that  Mr.  Tennent  preached  at  Nottingham,  his  sermon 
on  the  Dangers  of  an  Unconverted  Ministry,  which  is  contained  in 
volume  143,  of  the  valuable  collection  of  pamphlets  extending  to 
near  a  thousand  volumes,  presented  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Sprague  of 


PREFACE.  V 

Albany,  to  the  library  of  the  Theological  Seminary  in  this  place. 
In  1741,  Mr.  John  Thompson  published  his  sermon  on  the  Doc- 
trine of  Conviction,  which  was  answered  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Fin- 
ley  in  1743. 

The  Protest  presented  to  the  Synod  in  1741,  which  was  the  im- 
mediate cause  of  the  schism,  was  printed  with  a  historical  preface 
and  appendix,  and  is  preserved  in  the  Philadelphia  Library.  Mr. 
Tennent  immediately  published  Remarks  upon  that  Protest,  which 
are  included  in  the  collection  of  his  works  in  the  library  at  Worce- 
ster. Those  Remarks  were  answered  in  a  work  entitled,  Refuta- 
tion of  Mr.  Tennent's  Remarks,  &c,  by  some  of  the  members  of 
the  Synod,  Philadelphia,  1742.  The  brethren,  who  had  been 
excluded  from  the  Synod,  published  a  Declaration  of  their  senti- 
ments on  the  subjects  of  doctrine  and  church  government.  This 
tract  the  writer  has  not  been  able  to  find.  It  is,  however,  largely 
quoted  in  the  Detector  Detected,  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Smith,  con- 
tained in  vol.  561,  of  Dr.  Sprague's  collection. 

The  year  after  the  schism,  Mr.  G.  Tennent  printed  his  sermons 
against  the  Moravians.  Those  sermons  an  anonymous  writer  in 
Boston  contrasted  with  Mr.  Tennent's  Nottingham  discourse,  in  a 
book  called  the  Examiner,  or  Gilbert  versus  Tennent.  This  was 
answered  by  Mr.  Tennent,  in  the  Examiner  Examined,  printed  in 
1743.  Both  of  these  works  are  generally  accessible.  Mr.  Ten- 
nent's Irenicum,  or  Plea  for  the  Peace  of  Jerusalem,  published  in 
1749,  with  the  design  to  heal  the  divisions  in  the  church,  is  an- 
other of  the  most  important  works  relating  to  these  controversies. 

The  writer  has  faithfully  given  the  results  of  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  these  contemporaneous  publications.  The  conclusions  to 
which  he  has  arrived,  as  to  the  merits  of  the  controversy,  differ  in 
some  measure  from  his  own  previous  'impressions ;  and  may  differ 
still  more  from  the  accounts  preserved  by  tradition  in  various  parts 
of  the  church.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  the  reader  will  find 
no  conclusion  in  the  following  pages  materially  different  from  those 
to  which  Mr.  Tennent  had  arrived  in  1749. 

With  regard  to  the  two  other  chapters  contained  in  this  volume, 
there  is  less  to  be  said.     They  are  little  more  than  a  digest  of  the 


VI  PREFACE. 

minutes.  Tn  the  one  a  history  is  given  of  the  synods  of  Philadel- 
phia and  New  York,  during  the  seventeen  years  the  separation 
lasted,  by  classifying  their  acts  under  certain  heads.  The  same 
method  is  pursued  in  reference  to  the  united  Synod,  which  was 
formed  in  1758,  and  dissolved  in  1788,  after  having  formed  itself 
into  four  synods,  and  prepared  the  constitution  under  which  we 
have  acted  for  fifty  years ;  a  period  crowded  with  manifestations 
of  the  mercy  and  faithfulness  of  God  to  our  church. 

Princeton,  May  6,  1340. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    GREAT    REVIVAL    OF   RELIGION,    1740-1745. 

Introductory  Remarks. —  State  of  Religion  before  the  Revival  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church;  in  New  England,  in  Scotland,  and  England. —  History  of  the 
Revival  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  New  Jersey,  at  Freehold,  at  Law- 
renceville,  and  Hopewell ;  at  Newark  and  Elizabethtown  ;  in  Pennsylvania, 
at  Philadelphia,  New  London,  Neshaminy,  Nottingham,  &c. ;  in  Virginia. 
— History  of  the  Revival  in  New  England.  —  Proofs  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  Revival,  from  the  judgment  of  contemporary  writers;  from  the  doctrines 
preached ;  from  the  experience  of  its  subject ;  from  its  results. — Rapid  de- 
cline of  Religion  after  the  Revival,  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Edwards,  and 
by  the  spread  of  false  doctrines. — Evils  attending  the  Revival ;  spurious  reli- 
gious feeling,  bodily  agitations,  enthusiasm  ;  origin  of  a  fanatical  spirit  in 
Connecticut ;  account  of  the  Rev.  James  Davenport ;  censoriousness ;  disor- 
derly itinerating ;  lay-preaching. — Pages  11-101. 

(vii) 


V1U  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE     SCHISM,     1741. 
i 

The  act  of  the  Synod  relating  to  itinerating  preaching. — Act  respecting  the 
examination  of  candidates. —  These  acts  disobeyed  by  the  New  Brunswick 
Presbytery.  —  That  Presbytery  censured  by  the  Synod.  —  The  apology  of 
the  Presbytery. — They  continue  to  disobey  the  Synod. — The  propriety  of 
their  conduct  considered. — The  effects  of  this  controversy  in  the  congrega- 
tions and  presbyteries.  — Efforts  made  in  1740  to  compromise  the  difficulty. 
— Papers  of  complaints  presented  by  Messrs.  G.  Tennent  and  S.  Blair. — 
Mr.  Tennent's  Sermon  on  the  dangers  of  an  unconverted  ministry. — Com- 
plaints against  Mr.  Tennent. — Complaint  against  Mr.  Alexander  Creaghead; 
against  Mr.  David  Alexander. — Meeting  of  the  Synod  in  1741. — The  case  of 
Mr.  Creaghead  before  the  Synod. — The  Protest  presented  by  Robert  Cross 
and  others. — The  schism. — Proceedings  of  the  New  Brunswick  brethren 
after  the  schism. — Efforts  made  in  1742,  to  heal  the  breach ;  the  Protest  of 
J.  Dickinson  and  others. — Efforts  for  a  reconciliation  in  1743. — Renewal  of 
those  efforts  in  1745. — Formation  of  the  Synod  of  New  York.  Points  of 
difference  between  the  two  parties  as  to  the  revival ;  as  to  doctrine  ;  as  to 
church  government. — Causes  of  the  schism. — Pages  102—208. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

HISTORY   OF   THE    CHURCH    DURING   THE   SCHISM, 

1741-1758. 

Synod  of  Philadelphia. — Accessions  to  the  Synod. — Missionary  labours  of 
the  Synod. — Its  efforts  in  behalf  of  education. — Formation  of  the  Newark 


CONTENTS.  IX 

Academy.  —  Standard  of  doctrine.  —  Form  of  government.  —  Presby terial 
powers  exercised  by  the  Synod.  —  General  supervision.  —  Decision  of  cases 
of  conscience.  —  Pastoral  addresses. 
Synod  of  New  York. — Its  articles  of  agreement. — List  of  members. — Mission- 
ary labours. — Efforts  for  the  promotion  of  learning. — College  of  New  Jersey. 
— Standard  of  doctrine  adopted  by  the  Synod.  —  Its  form  of  government, 
acts  of  review  and  control.  —  Formation  of  new  Presbyteries.  —  Judicial 
decisions. — The  Synod  acted  by  a  commission,  and  as  a  Presbytery. — Nego- 
tiations for  a  union  of  the  two  Synods. — The  plan  of  union  adopted  in  1758. 
—Pages  209-281. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SYNOD    OF    NEW    YORK    AND    PHILADELPHIA, 

1758-1788. 

1  Missionary  operations. — II.  The  promotion  of  learning;  Newark  Academy; 
professorship  of  diviuity  ;  College  of  New  Jersey  ;  education  of  young  men 
for  the  ministry,  and  of  the  young  generally. — III.  Standard  of  doctrine. — 
IV.  Form  of  government ;  ordinary  powers ;  the  formation  of  Presbyte- 
ries ;  general  regulations ;  rule  respecting  the  examination  of  candidates  on 
their  religious  experience ;  rule  relating  to  foreign  ministers ;  rule  respect- 
ing ordinations  sine  titulo. — Decisions  respecting  psalmody  ;  respecting  mar- 
riage ;  respecting  baptism  ;  respecting  slavery. — General  supervision. — Ap- 
pellate jurisdiction ;  appeal  from  the  First  Church  in  Philadelphia ;  from 
the  Second  Church  in  Philadelphia ;  from  New  Castle ;  from  the  Third 
Church  respecting  a  call  for  Mr.  Duffield.  —  V.  Exercise  of  extraordinary 
powers,  in  acting  by  a  commission ;  in  the  exercise  of  presbyterial  powers  •, 
in  clothing  committees  with  synodical  authority. — VI.  The  Synod's  inter- 


CONTENTS. 

course  with  other  churches;  general  correspondence;  intercourse  with  the 
Seceders ;  with  the  Reformed  Dutch,  and  Associate  Reformed;  with  the 
Connecticut  churches;  united  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  bishops  into 
America. — VII.  Conduct  of  the  Synod  in  relation  to  the  revolutionary  war; 
address  on  the  repeal  of  the  stamp  act;  pastoral  letter  in  1775  ;  address  of 
the  clergy  in  Philadelphia;  pastoral  letter  in  1783. — VIII.  Formation  of  the 
new  constitution. — IX.  General  state  of  the  Church  from  1758  to  1788. — 
Pages  282-419. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 
PART   II. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    GREAT    REVIVAL   OF   RELIGION,  1740-45. 

Introductory  Remarks. —  State  of  Religion  before  the  Revival  in  ti,  ,i  Presby- 
terian Church  ;  in  New  England,  in  Scotland,  in  England. —  History  of  the 
Revival  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  in  New  Jersey,  at  Freehold,  at  Law- 
renceville,  Pennington,  Amwell,  Newark,  and  Elizabethtown ;  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, at  Philadelphia,  New  Londonderry,  Neshaminy,  Nottingham,  &c. ;  in 
Virginia ;  in  New  England. —  Proofs  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Revival ; 
from  the  judgment  of  contemporary  witnesses  ;  from  the  doctrines  preached  ; 
from  the  experience  of  its  subject;  from  its  effects. —  State  of  Religion  after 
the  Revival. — Evils  attending  the  Revival ;  spurious  religious  feelings,  bodily 
agitations,  enthusiasm,  censoriousness,  disorderly  itinerating,  and  lay-preach- 
ing.—  Conclusion. 

The  great  revival,  which  about  a  hundred  years  ago  visited  so 
extensively  the  American  Churches,  is  so  much  implicated  with  the 
ecclesiastical  history  of  our  own  denomination,  that  the  latter  can- 
not be  understood  without  some  knowledge  of  the  former.  The 
controversies  connected  with  the  revival  are  identical  with  the  dis- 
putes which  resulted  in  the  schism  which  divided  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  1741.  Before  entering,  therefore,  upon  the  history  of 
that  event,  it  will  be  necessary  to  present  the  reader  with  a  general 
survey  of  that  great  religious  excitement,  which  arrayed  in  conflict- 
ing parties  the  friends  of  religion  in  every  part  of  the  country. 
This  division  of  sentiment  could  hardly  have  occurred,  had  the  re- 

(11) 


12  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

vival  been  one  of  unmingled  purity.  Such  a  revival,  however,  the 
church  has  never  seen.  Every  luminous  body  is  sure  to  cause 
shadows  in  every  direction  and  of  every  form.  Where  the  Son  of 
man  sows  wheat,  the  evil  one  is  sure  to  sow  tares.  It  must  be  so. 
For  it  needs  be  that  offences  come,  though  woe  to  those  by  whom 
they  come. 

The  men  who,  either  from  their  character  or  circumstances,  are 
led  to  take  the  most  prominent  part,  during  such  seasons  of  excite- 
ment, are  themselves  often  carried  to  extremes,  or  are  so  connected 
with  the  extravagant,  that  they  are  sometimes  the  last  to  perceive 
and  the  slowest  to  oppose  the  evils  which  so  frequently  mar  the 
work  of  God,  and  burn  over  the  fields  which  he  had  just  watered 
with  his  grace.  Opposition  to  these  evils  commonly  comes  from  a 
different  quarter;  from  wise  and  good  men  who  have  been  kept  out 
of  the  focus  of  the  excitement.  And  it  is  well  that  there  are  such 
opposers,  else  the  church  would  soon  be  over-run  with  fanaticism. 

The  term  '  revival'  is  commonly  used  in  a  very  comprehensive 
sense.  It  includes  all  the  phenomena  attending  a  general  religious 
excitement ;  as  well  those  which  spring  from  God,  as  those  which  owe 
their  origin  to  the  infirmities  of  men.  Hence  those  who  favour  the 
work,  for  what  there  is  divine  in  it,  are  often  injuriously  regarded 
as  the  patrons  of  its  concomitant  irregularities,  and  those  who  op- 
pose what  is  unreasonable  about  it,  are  as  improperly  denounced  as 
the  enemies  of  religion.  It  is,  therefore,  only  one  expression  of 
that  fanaticism  which  haunts  the  spirit  of  revivals,  to  make  such  a 
work  a  touchstone  of  character ;  to  regard  all  as  good  who  favour 
it,  and  all  as  bad  who  oppose  it.  That  this  should  be  done  during 
the  continuance  of  the  excitement,  is  an  evil  to  be  expected  and 
pardoned  ;  but  to  commit  the  same  error  in  the  historical  review  of 
such  a  period,  would  admit  of  no.  excuse.  Hard  as  it  was  then 
either  to  see  or  to  believe,  we  can  now  easily  perceive  and  readily 
credit  that  some  of  the  best  and  some  of  the  worst  men  in  the 
church,  were  to  be  found  on  either  side,  in  the  controversy  respect- 
ing the  great  revival  of  the  last  century.  The  mere  geographical 
position  of  a  man,  in  many  cases,  determined  the  part  he  took  in 
that  controversy.     A  sober  and  sincere  Christian,  within  the  sphere 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  13 

of  Davenport's  operations,  might  well  be  an  opposer,  who,  had 
he  lived  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Edwards,  might  have  approved 
and  promoted  the  revival.  Yet  Edwards  and  Davenport  were  then 
regarded  as  leaders  in  the  same  great  work. 

That  there  had  been  a  lamentable  declension  in  religion  both  in 
Great  Britain  and  in  this  country,  is  universally  acknowledged  by 
the  writers  of  this  period.  The  Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  speaking  of 
the  state  of  religion  in  Pennsylvania  at  that  time,  says  :  "  I  doubt 
not  but  there  were  some  sincerely  religious  persons  up  and  down  ; 
and  there  were,  I  believe,  a  considerable  number  in  several  congre- 
gations pretty  exact,  according  to  their  education,  in  the  observance 
of  the  external  forms  of  religion,  not  only  as  to  attendance  upon 
public  ordinances  on  the  Sabbath,  but  also  as  to  the  practice  of 
family  worship,  and  perhaps  secret  prayer  too ;  but  with  those 
things,  the  most  part  seemed,  to  all  appearance,  to  rest  contented, 
and  to  satisfy  their  conscience  with  a  dead  formality  in  religion.  A 
very  lamentable  ignorance  of  the  essentials  of  true  practical  reli- 
gion, and  of  the  doctrines  relating  thereto,  very  generally  prevailed. 
The  nature  and  necessity  of  the  new-birth  were  little  known  or 
thought  of;  the  necessity  of  a  conviction  of  sin  and  misery,  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  opening  and  applying  the  law  to  the  conscience,  in 
order  to  a  saving  closure  with  Christ,  was  hardly  known  at  all  to 
most.  The  necessity  of  being  first  in  Christ  by  a  vital  union  and 
in  a  justified  state,  before  our  religious  services  can  be  well  pleasing 
or  acceptable  to  God,  was  very  little  understood  or  thought  of;  but 
the  common  notion  seemed  to  be,  that  if  people  were  aiming  to  be 
in  the  way  of  duty  as  well  as  they  could,  as  they  imagined,  there 
was  no  reason  to  be  much  afraid."  In  consequence  of  this  igno- 
rance of  the  nature  of  practical  religion,  there  were,  he  adds,  great 
carelessness  and  indifference  about  the  things  of  eternity ;  great 
coldness  and  unconcern  in  public  worship ;  a  disregard  of  the  Sab- 
bath, and  prevalence  of  worldly  amusements  and  follies.* 

In  1734,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  found  it  necessary  to  issue 

*  Narrative  of  the  late  remarkable  revival  of  religion  in  the  congregation  of 
New  Londonderry,  and  in  other  parts  of  Pennsylvania.  By  Rev.  Samuel  Blair, 
printed  in  his  works,  p.  336 ;  and  in  Gillies'  Collections,  vol.  ii.  p.  150. 


14  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

a  serious  admonition  to  the  presbyteries  to  examine  candidates  foi 
the  ministry  and  for  admission  to  the  Lord's  supper,  "as  to  theii 
experience  of  a  work  of  sanctifying  grace  in  their  hearts ;  and  to 
inquire  regularly  into  the  life,  conversation,  and  ministerial  dili- 
gence of  their  members,  especially  as  to  whether  they  preached  in 
an  evangelical  and  fervent  manner?"*  This  admonition  shows  that 
there  was  a  defect  as  to  all  these  points,  on  the  part  of  at  least 
some  of  the  members  of  the  Synod. 

In  1740,  Messrs.  Gilbert  Tennent  and  Samuel  Blair  presented 
two  representations,  complaining  of  "  many  defects  in  our  min- 
istry," that  are,  say  the  Synod,  "matter  of  the  greatest  lamenta- 
tion, if  chargeable  upon  our  members.  The  Synod  do  therefore 
solemnly  admonish  all  the  ministers  within  our  bounds,  seriously  to 
consider  the  weight  of  their  charge,  and,  as  they  will  answer  it  at 
the  great  day  of  Christ,  to  take  care  to  approve  themselves  to  God, 
in  the  instances  complained  of.  And  the  Synod  do  recommend  it 
to  the  several  presbyteries  to  take  care  of  their  several  members 
in  these  particulars. "f 

In  these  papers,  which  will  be  noticed  more  at  length  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapter,  complaint  is  made  of  the  want  of  fidelity  and  zeal 
in  preaching  the  gospel,  and  in  the  discharge  of  other  ministerial 
duties ;  and  the  strong  conviction  is  expressed  that  many  of  the 
members  of  the  Synod  were  in  an  unconverted  state.  It  is  true 
indeed  that  such  general  complaints  might  be  uttered  now,  or  at 
almost  any  period  of  the  church,  and  that  of  themselves  they  give 
us  but  little  definite  information  of  the  character  of  the  clergy. 
When  or  where  might  it  not  be  said,  that  many  of  the  preachers  of 
the  Gospel  were  too  worldly  in  their  conversation,  too  little  urgent, 
discriminating,  and  faithful  in  their  preaching  ?  That  these  faults, 
however,  prevailed  at  the  period  under  consideration,  to  a  greater 
extent  than  usual,  there  is  little  reason  to  doubt.  Mr.  Thompson, 
in  his  answer  to  these  charges,  says,  with  respect  to  the  complaint, 
"  concerning  the  low  state  of  religion  and  experimental  godliness, 
and  the  influence  which  the  negligence  and  remissness  of  ministers 
in  the  duties  of  their  office  have  upon  the  same,  I  acknowledge  that 

*  See  Part  I.  of  this  History,  p.  240.        f  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  p.  72. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  15 

I  believe  there  is  too  much  ground  for  it,  and  that  it  is  just  mattei 
of  mourning  and  lamentation  to  all  who  have  the  welfare  of  Zion 
and  the  prosperity  of  souls  at  heart ;  yea,  I  am  firmly  persuaded 
that  our  barrenness  and  fruitlessness  under  the  means  of  grace,  the 
decay  of  vital  godliness  in  both  ministers  and  people,  our  too  great 
contentedness  with  a  lifeless  lukewarm  orthodoxy  of  profession,  is 
one  principal  evil  whereby  our  God  hath  been  provoked  against  us, 
to  suffer  us  to  fall  into  such  divisions  and  confusions  as  we  are 
visibly  involved  in."*  He  makes  the  same  acknowledgment  with 
regard  to  some  of  the  more  specific  charges.  In  reference  to  that 
respecting  their  talking  to  the  people  more  about  secular  matters 
than  about  religion,  he  says :  "  I  may  charge  myself  in  particular 
with  being  guilty  of  misimproving  many  a  precious  opportunity 
that  might  have  been  improved  to  much  better  purpose  for  edifica- 
tion of  myself  and  others.  Yet  I  hope  the  generality  of  us  are 
not  degenerate  to  that  desperate  degree  in  this  matter  as  to  prove 
us  altogether  graceless ;  or  to  give  our  hearers  just  ground  to  be- 
lieve that  we  do  not  desire  them  to  be  deeply  and  heartily  concerned 
about  their  eternal  estate."  As  to  the  more  serious  charge  of 
"  endeavouring  to  prejudice  people  against  the  work  of  God's  power 
and  grace  in  the  conviction  and  conversion  of  sinners,"  he  pro- 
nounces it  to  be,  as  far  as  he  knows,  "  a  downright  calumny."  "  It 
is  true,"  he  adds,  "there  are  some  things  in  our  brethren's  conduct 
which  we  cannot  but  condemn,  and  have  condemned  and  spoken 
against  both  in  public  and  private ;  and  some  things  also  which  are 
the  frequent  effects  of  their  preaching  on  many  of  their  hearers 
which  we  cannot  esteem  so  highly  of,  as  both  they  and  their 
admirers  do."  He  then  refers  to  their  censoriousness,  to  their 
endeavours  to  prejudice  their  people  against  them  as  unconverted, 
their  intruding  into  other  men's  congregations  against  their  will, 
and  the  extravagances  which  they  allowed  and  encouraged  in  public 
worship.  He  also  denies  the  charge,  that  they  insisted  on  external 
duties  to  the  "  neglect  of  vital  religion  and  the  necessity  of  regene- 
ration ;"  and  the  assertion  that  they  "  seldom  or  never  preached  on 
the  nature  and  necessity  of  conversion,"  he  declares  to  be  another 
slander  taken  up  from  prejudiced  persons. 

*  Church  of  Christ,  p.  29. 


16  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  neither  Mr.  Tennent  nor  Mr.  Blair, 
when  professedly  bringing  forward  grounds  of  complaint  against 
their  brethren,  mentions  either  the  denial  of  any  of  the  leading 
doctrines  of  the  Bible,  or  open  immorality.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted, 
that  had  error  or  immoral  conduct  prevailed,  or  been  tolerated 
among  the  clergy,  it  would  have  been  prominently  presented.* 
We  know,  however,  from  other  sources,  that  there  was  no  prevalent 
defection  from  the  truth  among  the  ministers  of  our  church.  The 
complaint  against  the  old-side  was,  that  they  adhered  too  rigidly  to 
the  Westminster  Confession ;  and  the  theology  of  every  leading 
man  on  the  new-side,  is  known  from  his  writings,  to  have  been 
thoroughly  Calvinistic.  There  is  not  a  single  minister  of  that  age 
in  connection  with  our  church,  whose  name  has  come  down  to  us 
under  the  suspicion  of  Arminianism.  False  doctrine,  therefore, 
was  not  the  evil  under  which  the  church  then  suffered.  It  was 
rather  a  coldness  and  sluggishness  with  regard  to  religion.  There 
was,  undoubtedly,  before  the  revival,  a  general  indifference  and 
lukewarmness  among  the  clergy  and  people ;  and  there  is  too  much 
reason  to  fear,  that  in  some  cases  the  ministers,  though  orthodox, 
knew  nothing  of  experimental  religion.  These  cases  were  indeed 
not  so  numerous  as  the  representations  of  Tennent  would  lead  us 
to  expect,  as  he  himself  afterwards  freely  acknowledged. 

As  far,  then,  as  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  concerned,  the  state 
of  religion  was  very  low  before  the  commencement  of  the  great 

*  The  charge  which  Mr.  Tennent  makes  against  the  Synod,  of  error  in  doc- 
trine, respecting  the  foundation  of  moral  ohligation,  is  so  evidently  unjust, 
that  it  may  be  safely  disregarded.  It  will  be  remembered  that  he  and  Mr. 
Cowell  had  a  long  dispute  upon  this  subject,  which  was  brought  before  the 
Synod,  and  that  President  Dickinson  and  others,  as  a  committee,  brought  in 
a  report  condemning  the  opinions  against  which  Mr.  Tennent  contended,  in 
such  terms  that  he  himself  voted  for  the  adoption  of  the  report.  He  has  cer- 
tainly, therefore,  no  right  to  charge  the  adoption  of  that  report  as  a  proof  of 
unsound  doctrine.  As  to  the  other  point,  which  he  specifies,  viz. :  that  there 
is  a  certainty  of  salvation  annexed  to  the  efforts  of  unrenewed  men,  we  know 
nothing,  except  that  Mr.  Thompson  says,  "  If  there  be  any  of  the  members  of 
the  Synod  of  this  judgment,  it  is  more  than  I  know,  and  I  am  persuaded  there 
ure  very  few  ;  for  my  own  part,  I  know  not  one  whom  I  so  much  as  suspect,  in 
this  particular."     See  on  this  subject,  ch.  iii.  p.  197  of  this  work. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  17 

revival.  As  that  work  extended  over  the  whole  country,  and  was 
perhaps  more  general  and  powerful  in  New  England  than  any  where 
else,  in  order  to  have  any  just  idea  of  its  character,  our  attention 
must  be  directed  to  the  congregational  churches,  as  well  as  to  those 
of  our  own  denomination.  After  the  first  generation  of  Puritans 
had  passed  away,  religion  seems  to  have  declined  very  rapidly,  so 
that  the  writings  of  those  who  had  seen  what  the  churches  in  New 
England  were  at  the  beginning,  are  filled  with  lamentations  over 
their  subsequent  condition,  and  with  gloomy  prognostications  as  to 
the  future.  As  early  as  1678,  Dr.  Increase  Mather  says,  "  The 
body  of  the  rising  generation  is  a  poor,  perishing,  unconverted, 
and  (unless  the  Lord  pour  down  his  Spirit)  an  undone  generation. 
Many  are  profane,  drunkards,  swearers,  lascivious,  scoffers  at  the 
power  of  godliness,  despisers  of  those  that  are  good,  disobedient. 
Others  are  only  civil  and  outwardly  conformed  to  good  order  by 
reason  of  their  education,  but  never  knew  what  the  new  birth 
means."*  In  1721,  he  writes  thus:  "I  am  now  in  the  eighty- 
third  year  of  my  age  ;  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  converse 
with  the  first  planters  of  this  country,  and  having  been  for  sixty 
five  years  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel,  I  cannot  but  be  in  the  dispo- 
sition of  those  ancient  men,-  who  had  seen  the  foundation  of  the 
first  house,  and  wept  to  see  the  change  the  work  of  the  temple  had 
upon  it.  I  wish  it  were  no  other  than  the  weakness  of  Horace's 
old  man,  the  laudator  temporis  acti,  when  I  complain  there  is  a 
grievous  decay  of  piety  in  the  land,  and  a  leaving  of  her  first  love ; 
and  that  the  beauties  of  holiness  are  not  to  be  seen  as  once  they 
were ;  a  fruitful  Christian  grown  too  rare  a  spectacle ;  yea,  too 
many  are  given  to  change,  and  leave  that  order  of  the  Gospel  to 
set  up  and  uphold  which,  was  the  very  design  of  these  colonies ; 
and  the  very  interest  of  New  England  seems  to  be  changed  from  a 
leligious  to  a  worldly  one. ""J*  We  must,  however,  be  on  our  guard 
against  drawing  false  conclusions  from  such  statements.    We  should 

*  Prince's  Christian  History,  vol.  i.  p.  98. 

f  Prince,  vol.  i.  p.  103.     This  writer,  in  Nos.  12,  13,  and  14,  has  collected 
many  other  testimonies  "  to  the  great  and  lamentable  decay  of  religion"  in  the 
generations  following  the  first  settlement  of  New  England. 
VOL.  II. — 2 


18  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

remember  how  high  was  the  standard  of  piety  which  such  writers 
had  in  view,  and  how  peculiarly  flourishing  was  the  original  condi- 
tion of  those  churches  whose  declension  is  here  spoken  of.  There 
may  have  been,  and  doubtless  was  much  even  in  that  age,  over 
which  we,  in  these  less  religious  days,  would  heartily  rejoice.  What 
was  decay  to  them,  would  be  revival  to  us.  The  declension,  how- 
ever, did  not  stop  at  this  stage.  The  generation  which  succeeded 
that  over  which  Increase  Mather  mourned,  departed  still  further 
from  the  doctrines  and  spirit  of  their  pious  ancestors.  "  The  third 
and  fourth  generations,"  says  Trumbull,  "  became  still  more  gene- 
rally inattentive  to  their  spiritual  concerns,  and  manifested  a  greater 
declension  from  the  purity  and  zeal  of  their  ancestors.  Though 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  was  not  altogether  without  success, 
and  though  there  were  tolerable  peace  and  order  in  the  churches ; 
yet  there  was  too  generally  a  great  decay  as  to  the  life  and  power 
of  godliness.  There  was  a  general  ease  and  security  in  sin.  Abun- 
dant were  the  lamentations  of  pious  ministers  and  good  people 
poured  out  before  God,  on  this  account."*  As  a  single  example 
of  such  lamentations,  we  may  quote  the  account  of  the  state  of 
religion  in  Taunton,  in  1740,  as  given  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Crocker. 
"  The  church  was  but  small,  considering  the  number  of  inhabitants  ; 
and  deadness,  dulness,  formality,  and  security  prevailed  among  them. 
Any  who  were  wise  virgins  (and  I  trust  there  were  a  few  such) 
appeared  to  be  slumbering  and  sleeping  with  the  foolish  ;  and  sin- 
ners appeared  to  be  at  ease  in  Zion.  In  a  word,  it  is  to  be  feared 
there  was  but  little  of  the  life  or  power  of  godliness  among  them, 
and  irreligion  and  immorality  of  one  kind  or  another  seemed  awfully 
to  increase. "f 

The  defection  from  sound  doctrine  was  also  very  extensive  at 
this  period ;  an  evil  which  the  revival  but  partially  arrested,  and 
that  only  for  a  few  years.  Edwards  speaks  of  Arminianism  as 
making  a  great  noise  in  the  land  in  1734, |  and  his  biographer  says, 
there  was  a  prevailing  tendency  to  that  system,  at  that  time,  not 

*  History  of  Connecticut,  vol.  ii.  p.  135. 

f  See  Prince,  No.  93,  and  also  Nos.  30  and  50,  for  similar  accounts. 

X  Dwight's  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  140. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  19 

only  in  the  county  of  Hampshire,  but  throughout  the  province.* 
This  tendency  was  not  confined  to  Massachusetts ;  it  was  as  great, 
if  not  greater,  in  Connecticut.  President  Clapp,  though  himself  a 
Calvinist,  was  elected  to  the  presidency  of  Yale  College  in  1739, 
"  by  a  board  of  trustees  exclusively  Arrainian,  and  all  his  asso- 
ciates in  office  held  the  same  tenets. "f  We  know  not  on  what 
authority  this  specific  statement  rests,  but  it  is  rendered  credible  by 
other  facts ;  such,  for  example,  as  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Whittle- 
sey at  Milford,  notwithstanding  the  strenuous  opposition  of  a  large 
majority  of  people,  founded  on  the  belief  "  that  he  was  not  sound 
in  the  faith,  but  had  imbibed  the  opinions  of  Arminius  ;"|  in  which 
matter  the  ordaining  council  were  fully  sustained  by  the  Associa- 
tion of  New  Haven. 

In  Scotland  there  had  been  a  general  decay  in  the  power  of  re- 
ligion from  the  revolution  in  1688  to  the  time  of  which  we  are  now 
speaking.  In  1712  Halyburton  complained,  upon  his  death-bed, 
of  the  indifference  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  gospel  and  to  the 
power  of  godliness  which  prevailed  among  a  great  portion  of  the 
clergy.  There  had  indeed  been  no  general  defection  from  the 
truth  ;  though  the  lenity  with  which  the  Assembly  treated  the 
errors  of  Professor  Simson  of  Glasgow,  and  Professor  Campbell 
of  Aberdeen,  is  appealed  to  by  the  Seceders,  in  their  Act  and 
Testimony  of  1736,  with  too  much  reason,  in  proof  of  a  criminal 
indifference  to  the  doctrines  of  the  church.  Though  there  had 
been  extensive  revivals  in  the  West  of  Scotland  in  1725,  and  a 
most  remarkable  effusion  of  the  Spirit  at  the  kirk  of  Shotts  in 
1730,  as  well  as  in  other  parts  of  the  kingdom,  the  general  state 
of  religion  was  low,  and  upon  the  decline. 

In  England  the  case  was  far  wor'se.  From  the  accession  of 
Charles  II.  in  1660  and  the  exclusion  of  the  non-conformists,  true 
religion  seems  to  have  declined  rapidly  in  the  established  church. 
Bishop  Butler  says,  in  his  Introduction  to  his  Analogy,  that  in  his 
day  Christianity  itself  seemed  to  be  regarded  as  a  fable  "  among 
all  persons  of  discernment;"  and  in  his  first  charge  to  the  clergy 

*  Dwight's  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  434.  f  Ibid.  p.  211. 

t  Trumbull,  vol.  ii.  p.  335. 


20  PRESBYTERIAX     CHURCn 

of  the  diocess  of  Durham  he  laments  over  "  the  general  decay  of 
religion  in  the  nation,"  the  influence  of  which,  he  says,  seems  to 
be  wearing  out  the  minds  of  men.*  Before  the  rise  of  the  Me- 
thodists, says  John  Newton,  "  the  doctrines  of  grace  were  seldom 
heard  from  the  pulpit,  and  the  life  and  power  of  religion  were  little 
known." 

Such  in  few  words  was  the  state  of' religion  in  England,  Scot- 
land and  America,  when  it  pleased  God,  contemporaneously  in 
these  several  countries,  remarkably  to  revive  his  work.  The  earli- 
est manifestation  of  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  our  por- 
tion  of  the  church,  during  this  period,  was  at  Freehold,  N.  J., 
under  the  ministry  of  the  Rev.  John  Tennent,  who  was  called  to 
that  congregation  in  1730,  and  died  in  1732.  "  The  settling  of 
that  place,"  says  his  brother,  the  Rev.  Wm.  Tennent,  "with  a  gos- 
pel ministry,  was  owing  under  God,  to  the  agency  of  some  Scotch 
people,  that  came  to  it;  among  whom  there  was  none  so  pains-tak- 
ing in  this  blessed  work  as  one  Walter  Ker,  who,  in  1685,  for  his 
faithful  and  conscientious  adherence  to  God  and  his  truth  as  pro- 
fessed by  the  church  of  Scotland,  was  there  apprehended  and  sent 
to  this  country,  under  a  sentence  of  perpetual  banishment.  By 
which  it  appears  that  the  devil  and  his  instruments  lost  their  aim 
in  sending  him  from  home,  where  it  is  unlikely  he  could  ever  have 
been  so  serviceable  to  Christ's  kingdom  as  he  has  been  here.  He 
is  yet  (1744)  alive ;  and,  blessed  be  God,  flourishing  in  his  old  age, 
being  in  his  88th  year." 

The  state  of  religion  for  a  time  in  this  congregation  was  very 
low.  The  labours  of  Mr.  J.  Tennent,  however,  were,  greatly 
blessed.  The  place  of  public  worship  was  generally  crowded  with 
people,  who  seemed  to  hear  as  for  their  lives.  Religion  became 
the  general  subject  of  discourse ;  though  all  did  not  approve  of  the 
power  of  it.  The  Holy  Scriptures  were  searched  by  people  on 
both  sides  of  the  question  ;  and  knowledge  surprisingly  increased. 
The  terror  of  God  fell  generally  on  the  inhabitants  of  the  place, 
so  that  wickedness,  as  ashamed,  in  a  great  measure  hid  its  head. 

*  Butler's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  238. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  21 

Mr.  William  Tennent,  who  succeeded  his  brother  in  1733  as  pas- 
tor of  that  church,  says  the  effects  of  the  labours  of  his  predeces- 
sor were  more  discernible  a  few  months  after  his  death,  than  during 
his  life.  The  religious  excitement  thus  commenced  continued,  with 
various  alternations,  until  1744,  the  date  of  this  account.  As  to 
the  number  of  converts,  Mr.  T.  says,  "  I  cannot  tell ;  my  comfort 
is,  that  the  Lord  will  reckon  them,  for  he  knows  who  are  his." 
Those  who  were  brought  to  the  Saviour,  "  were  all  prepared  for  it 
by  a  sharp  law-work  of  conviction,  in  discovering  to  them,  in  a 
heart-affecting  manner,  their  sinfulness  both  by  nature  and  practice, 
as  well  as  their  liableness  to  damnation  for  their  original  and  actual 
transgressions.  Neither  could  they  see  any  way  in  themselves  by 
which  they  could  escape  the  divine  vengeance.  For  their  whole 
past  lives  were  not  only  a  continued  act  of  rebellion  against  God, 
but  their  present  endeavours  to  better  their  state,  such  as  prayers 
and  the  like,  were  so  imperfect,  that  they  could  not  endure  them, 
and  much  less,  they  concluded,  would  a  holy  God.  They  all  con- 
fessed the  justice  of  God  in  their  eternal  perdition  ;  and  thus  were 
shut  up  to  the  blessed  necessity  of  seeking  relief  by  faith  in  Christ 
alone." 

The  sorrows  of  the  convinced  were  not  alike  in  all,  either  in  de- 
gree or  continuance.  Some  did  not  think  it  possible  for  them  to 
be  saved,  but  these  thoughts  did  not  continue  long.  Others  thought 
it  possible,  but  not  very  probable  on  account  of  their  vileness. 
The  greatest  degree  of  hope  which  any  had  under  a  conviction 
which  issued  well,  was  a  may-be :  Peradventure,  said  the  sinner, 
God  will  have  mercy  on  me. 

The  conviction  of  some  was  instantaneous,  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
applying  the  law  and  revealing  all  the  deceit  of  their  hearts,  very 
speedily.  But  that  of  others  was  more  progressive.  They  had 
discovered  to  them  one  abomination  after  another,  in  their  lives, 
and  hence  were  led  to  discover  the  fountain  of  all  corruption  in  the 
heart,  and  thus  were  constrained  to  despair  of  life  by  the  law,  and 
consequently  to  flee  to  Jesus  Christ  as  the  only  refuge,  and  to  rest 
entirely  in  his  merits. 

After  such  sorrowful  exercises   such  as  were  reconciled  to  God 


22  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

were  blessed  with  the  spirit  of  adoption,  enabling  them  to  cry, 
"  Abba,  Father."  Some  had  greater  degrees  of  consolation  than 
others  in  proportion  to  the  clearness  of  the  evidences  of  their  son- 
ship.  The  way  in  which  they  received  consolation,  was  either  by 
the  application  of  some  particular  promise  of  Scripture  ;  or  by  a 
soul-affecting  view  of  the  method  of  salvation  by  Christ,  as  free, 
without  money  and  without  price.  With  this  way  of  salvation 
their  souls  were  well  pleased,  and  thereupon  they  ventured  their 
case  into  his  hands,  expecting  help  from  him  only. 

As  to  the  effects  of  this  work  on  the  subjects  of  it,  Mr.  Tennent 
says,  they  were  not  only  made  to  know  but  heartily  to  approve  of 
the  great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  which  they  were  before  either 
ignorant  of,  or  averse  to  (at  least  some  of  them  ;)  so  that  they 
sweetly  agreed  in  exalting  free,  special,  sovereign  grace,  through 
the  Redeemer ;  being  willing  to  glory  only  in  the  Lord,  who  loved 
them  and  gave  himself  for  them.  They  approved  of  the  law  of 
God  after  the  inward  man,  as  holy,  just,  and  good,  and  prized  it 
above  gold.  They  judged  it  their  duty  as  well  as  privilege  to  wait 
on  God  in  all  his  ordinances.  A  reverence  for  his  commanding 
authority  and  gratitude  for  his  love  conspired  to  incite  them  to  a 
willing,  unfeigned,  universal,  unfainting  obedience  to  his  laws ;  yet 
they  felt  that  in  every  thing  they  came  sadly  short,  and  bitterly 
bewailed  their  defects.  They  loved  all  such  as  they  had  reason  to 
think,  from  their  principles,  experience  and  practice,  were  truly 
godly,  though  they  differed  from  them  in  sentiment  as  to  smaller 
matters ;  and  looked  upon  them  as  the  excellent  of  the  earth. 
They  preferred  others  to  themselves,  in  love ;  except  when  under 
temptation ;  and  their  failures  they  were  ready  to  confess  and  be- 
wail, generally  accounting  themselves  that  they  were  the  meanest 
of  the  family  of  God. 

Through  God's  mercy,  adds  Mr.  Tennent,  we  have  been  quite 
free  from  enthusiasm.  Our  people  have  followed  the  holy  law  of 
God,  the  sure  word  of  prophecy,  and  not  the  impulses  of  their  own 
minds.  There  have  not  been  among  us,  that  I  know  of,  any  visions, 
except  such  as  are  by  faith ;  namely,  clear  and  affecting  views  of 
the  new  and  living  way  to  the  Father  through  his  dear  Son  Jesus 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  23 

Christ ;  nor  any  revelations  but  what  have  been  long  since  written 
in  the  sacred  volume.* 

The  leading  characteristics  of  this  work  were  a  deep  conviction 
of  sin,  arising  from  clear  apprehensions  of  the  extent  and  spirit- 
uality of  the  divine  law.  This  conviction  consisted  in  an  humbling 
sense  both  of  guilt  and  corruption.  It  led  to  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  justice  of  God  in  their  condemnation,  and  of  their  entire 
helplessness  in  themselves.  Secondly,  clear  apprehensions  of  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  producing  a  cordial  acquiescence  in 
the  plan  of  salvation  presented  in  the  Gospel,  and  a  believing  accept- 
ance of  the  oifers  of  mercy.  The  soul  thus  returned  to  God  through 
Jesus  Christ,  depending  on  his  merits  for  the  divine  favour.  Thirdly, 
this  faith  produced  joy  and  peace ;  a  sincere  approbation  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel ;  delight  in  the  law  of  God ;  a  constant 
endeavour  to  obey  his  will ;  love  to  the  brethren,  and  a  habitually 
low  estimate  of  themselves  and  their  attainments.  This  surely  is 
a  description  of  true  religion.  Here  are  fa.ith,  hope,  charity,  obe- 
dience, and  humility,  and  where  these  are,  there  is  the  Spirit  of 
God,  for  these  are  his  fruits. 

The  revival  in  Lawrence,  Hopewell,  and  Amwell,  three  conti- 
guous towns  in  New  Jersey,  commenced  under  the  ministry  of  Rev. 
John  Rowland,  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick.  As  the 
churches  in  two  of  these  towns  belonged  to  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, and  as  a  large  portion  of  the  people  did  not  unite  in  the 
call  to  Mr.  Rowland,  he  at  first  preached  in  barns.  In  1744,  how- 
ever, a  new  congregation  was  formed  under  the  care  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Brunswick. f     According  to  the  account  of  Mr.  Row- 

*  Letter  to  Rev.  Mr.  Prince,  of  Boston,  by  William  Tennent,  dated  Oct.  9, 
1744 ;  published  in  the  Christian  History,  Nos.  90,  91,  and  reprinted  in  Gil- 
lies' Collections,  vol.  ii.  p.  28.  In  the  preceding  account  the  language  of  the 
original  narrator  is  almost  uniformly  retained,  though  his  statements  are  very 
much  abridged  and  condensed.  The  usual  indication  of  quotation,  therefore, 
has  not  been  given.  We  shall  pursue  the  same  plan  in  giving  an  account  of 
the  revival  in  other  places. 

f  In  a  letter  from  Mr.  William  Tennent  to  Mr.  Prince,  dated  October  11, 
1744,  he  says,  "  About  four  weeks  since,  at  the  invitation  of  the  people,  and 
desire  of  our  Presbytery,  I  gathered  a  church,  and  celebrated  the  Lord's 


24  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

land,  the  revival  in  these  towns  was  at  first  slow  in  its  progress,  one 
or  two  persons  only  being  seriously  affected  under  each  sermon.  In 
the  spring  of  1739,  the  number  increased ;  and  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  evidently  attended  the  word  on  several  occasions,  until  May, 
1740,  when  the  work  became  more  extensive.  On  one  occasion  the 
people  cried  out  so  awfully  that  the  preacher  was  constrained  to 
conclude.  After  f;he  sermon  he  inquired  of  those  whose  feelings 
had  thus  overcome  them,  what  was  the  real  cause  of  their  crying 
out  in  such  a  manner.  Some  answered,  "  They  saw  hell  opening 
before  them  and  themselves  ready  to  fall  into  it."  Others  said, 
"  They  were  struck  with  such  a  sense  of  their  sinfulness  that  they 
were  afraid  the  Lord  would  never  have  mercy  upon  them."  During 
the  summer  of  1740,  the  people,  on  several  occasions,  were  deeply 
affected,  and  at  times  their  convictions  were  attended  with  great 
horror,  trembling,  and  loud  weeping.  Many  continued  crying  in 
the  most  doleful  manner,  along  the  road,  on  their  way  home,  and 
it  was  not  in  the  power  of  man  to  restrain  them,  for  the  word  of  the 
Lord  remained  like  fire  upon  their  hearts.  Of  those  who  were  thus 
affected  by  a  sense  of  their  guilt  and  danger,  many  became  to  all 
appearance,  true  Christians  ;  many  went  back,  and  became  stiff- 
necked.  The  number  in  the  latter  class  was  small,  Mr.  Rowland 
says,  in  comparison  to  what  he  had  seen  in  most  other  places  of  his 
acquaintance.  Those  who  were  regarded  as  real  converts  gave  a 
very  distinct  account  of  sin  both  original  and  actual.  Their  views 
of  the  corruption  of  their  own  hearts,  and  of  their  distance  from 
God,  were  very  clear  and  affecting.  Their  hardness,  unbelief,  igno- 
rance, and  blindness,  pressed  very  heavily  upon  them.  Their  appre- 
hension of  their  need  of  Christ,  and  of  his  Spirit,  was  such  that 
they  could  find  rest  or  contentment  in  nothing,  until  they  had  ob- 
tained an  interest  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  had  received  his  Spirit  to 
sanctify  their  hearts.  Those  under  conviction  were  very  watchful 
over  themselves,  lest  they  should  receive  false  comfort,  and  thus  rest 
in  unfounded  hopes.  Their  views  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  to  his  per- 
son, nature,  and  offices,  and  of  the  actings  of  their  own  faith  and 

supper  at  a  newly-erected  congregation  in  the  towns  of  Maidenhead  (Law- 
rence) and  Hopewell." —  Christian  History,  No.  91. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  25 

love  towards  him,  were  clear  and  satisfactory.  They  continued, 
until  the  date  of  this  account,  careful  to  maintain  a  holy  commu- 
nion with  God,  in  the  general  course  of  their  lives,  were  zealous 
for  his  truth,  and  walked  steadily  in  his  ways.* 

Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Freehold,  are  to  be  recognized  the  essen- 
tial features  of  a  genuine  revival,  conviction  of  sin,  faith  in  Christ, 
joy  and  peace  in  believing,  and  a  holy  life.  There  was,  however, 
apparently,  a  greater  admixture  of  mere  animal  feeling  in  this  than 
in  the  preceding  case. 

In  Newark  and  Elizabethtown,  according  to  President  Dickinson, 
religion  was  in  a  very  low  state  until  1739.  In  August  of  that 
year  a  remarkable  revival,  especially  among  the  young,  commenced 
in  Newark,  which  continued  and  increased  during  the  months  of 
November,  December,  and  January  following.  There  was  a  gene- 
ral reformation  among  the  young  people,  who  forsook  the  taverns 
and  other  places  of  amusement.  All  occasions  for  public  worship 
were  embraced  with  gladness.  Great  solemnity  and  devout  atten- 
tion were  manifested  in  their  assemblies.  In  March  the  whole 
town  was  brought  under  an  uncommon  concern  about  eternal  things ; 
which,  during  the  summer,  sensibly  abated,  though  it  did  not  en- 
tirely die  away.  Nothing  remarkable  occurred  until  February, 
1 741,  when  they  were  again  visited  with  the  special  effusion  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  A  plain,  familiar  sermon  then  preached,  without 
any  peculiar  terror,  fervour,  or  affectionate  manner  of  address,  was 
set  home  with  power.  Many  were  brought  to  see  and  feel  that  till 
then  they  had  no  more  than  a  name  to  live ;  and  professors  in 
general  were  put  upon  solemn  inquiry  into  the  foundation  of  their 
hope.  During  the  following  summer,  this  religious  concern  sen- 
sibly decayed  ;  and,  though  the  sincere  converts  held  fast  their  pro- 
fession without  wavering,  too  many  of  those  who  had  been  under- 
conviction  grew  careless  and  secure.  What  seemed  greatly  to  con- 
tribute to  this  growing  security,  was  the  pride,  false  and  rash  zeal, 
and  censoriousness  among  some  who  made  high  pretences  to  reli- 
gion.    This  opened  the  mouths  of  many  against  the  whole  work, 

*  Letter  of  Rev.  Mr.  Rowland  to  Mr.  Foxcroft,  of  Boston,  printed  at  Phila- 
delphia, in  1745,  and  reprinted  in  Gillies'  Collections,  vol.  ii.  p.  132. 


26  PRESBYTERIAN   CHUKCH 

and  raised  that  opposition  which  was  not  before  heard  of.  Almost 
every  body  seemed  to  acknowledge  the  finger  of  God  in  those  won- 
derful appearances,  until  this  handle  was  given  to  their  opposition ; 
and  the  dreadful  scandals  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  C,  which  came  to  light 
about  this  time,  proved  a  means  to  still  further  harden  many  in 
their  declension  and  apostasy.  That  unhappy  gentleman  having 
made  such  high  pretensions  to  extraordinary  piety  and  zeal,  his 
scandals  gave  the  deeper  wound  to  vital  and  experimental  godliness. 
Thus  far  regarding  Newark.  In  the  fall  of  1739,  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Whitefield  preached  in  Elizabethtown  to  a  numerous  and  attentive 
audience,  but  without  any  marked  result.  There  was  no  apparent 
success  attending  the  labours  of  Mr.  Dickinson  during  that  winter ; 
which  severely  tried  his  faith  and  patience,  as  the  neighbouring 
town  was  then  so  remarkably  visited.  In  June,  1740,  he  invited 
the  young  people  to  hear  a  discourse  designed  particularly  for  their 
benefit.  A  large  congregation  assembled,  and  he  preached  a  plain, 
practical  sermon,  without  any  special  liveliness  or  vigour,  as  he  was 
himself  in  a  remarkably  dull  frame,  until  enlivened  by  a  sudden 
and  deep  impression  which  visibly  appeared  on  the  whole  congre- 
gation. There  was  no  crying  out,  or  falling  down,  (as  elsewhere 
happened,)  but  the  distress  of  the  audience  discovered  itself  by 
tears  and  by  audible  sobbing  and  sighing  in  almost  all  parts  of  the 
house.  From  this  time  the  usual  amusements  of  the  young  were 
laid  aside,  and  private  meetings  for  religious  exercises  were  insti- 
tuted by  them  in  different  parts  of  the  town.  Public  worship  was 
constantly  attended  in  a  very  solemn  manner  by  the  people  gene- 
rally. More  persons  applied,  in  a  single  day,  during  this  period, 
to  their  pastor  for  spiritual  direction,  than  in  half  a  year  before. 
In  another  letter,  dated  September  4,  1740,  Mr.  Dickinson  says : 
"  I  have  had  more  young  people  address  me  for  direction  in  their 
spiritual  concerns  within  these  three  months  than  within  thirty 
years  before."  Though  there  were  so  many  brought  under  convic- 
tion at  the  same  time,  there  was  little  appearance  of  those  irregu- 
lar heats  of  which  so  much  complaint  was  made  in  other  parts  of 
the  land.  Only  two  or  three  occurrences  of  that  nature  took  place, 
and  they  were  easily  and  speedily  regulated.     This  work  was  sub- 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  27 

stantially  the  same  in  all  the  subjects  of  it.  Some  indeed  suffered 
more  than  others,  yet  all  were  brought  under  a  deep  sense  of  sin, 
guilt  and  danger,  and  none  obtained  satisfactory  discoveries  of  their 
safety  in  Christ,  till  they  were  brought  to  despair  of  all  help  for 
themselves,  and  to  feel  that  they  lay  at  the  mercy  of  God.  There 
were  no  instances  of  such  sudden  conversions,  nor  of  those  ecstatic 
raptures  spoken  of  in  other  places.  Some  who  at  one  time  were 
deeply  affected,  soon  wore  off  their  impressions,  but  Mr.  Dickinson 
says  he  did  not  know  of  any  two  persons  who  gave  reasonable  evi- 
dence of  conversion,  who  had  disappointed  his  hopes.  About  sixty 
persons  in  Elizabethtown,  and  a  number  in  the  adjoining  parish,  were 
regarded  as  having  experienced  a  change  of  heart  during  this  revival.* 
In  New  Brunswick  and  its  neighbourhood,  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent 
informs  us,  the  labours  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Freiinghuysen,  of  the 
Dutch  Reformed  Church,  had  been  much  blessed,  especially  about 
the  time  of  his  first  settlement  over  that  people  in  the  year  1720. 
When  Mr.  Tennent  took  charge  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
New  Brunswick,  about  1727,  he  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  many 
proofs  of  the  usefulness  of  his  worthy  fellow-labourer  in  the  cause 
of  Christ.  Mr.  Tennent  was  much  distressed  at  his  own  apparent 
want  of  success ;  for  eighteen  months  after  his  settlement,  he  saw 
no  evidence  that  any  one  had  been  savingly  benefited  by  his  la- 
bours. He  then  commenced  a  serious  examination  of  the  members 
of  his  church,  as  to  the  grounds  of  their  hope,  which  he  found,  in 
many  cases,  to  be  but  sand.  Such  he  solemnly  warned  and  urged 
to  seek  converting  grace.  By  this  method  many  were  awakened, 
and  not  a  few,  to  all  appearance,  converted.  As  the  effect  of  his 
labours  increased,  adversaries  were  multiplied ;  and  his  character 
was  unjustly  aspersed,  which,  however,  did  not  discourage  him. 
He  preached  much,  at  this  time,  upon  original  sin,  repentance,  the 
nature  and  necessity  of  conversion ;  and  endeavoured  to  alarm  the 
secure  by  the  terrors  of  the  Lord,  as  well  as  to  affect  them  by 
other  topics  of  persuasion.  These  efforts  were  followed  by  the  con- 
viction and  conversion  of  a  considerable  number  of  persons  at  va- 

*  President  Dickinson's  Letter  to  Rev.  Mr.  Foscroft,  dated  August  23,  1743, 
in  the  Christian  History,  No.  32. 


28  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

rious  places,  and  at  different  times.  During  his  residence  at  New 
Brunswick  there  was  no  great  ingathering  of  souls,  at  any  one  time, 
though  there  were  frequent  gleanings  of  a  few  here  and  there. 
During  the  revival  of  1740,  New  Brunswick,  he  says,  felt  some 
drops  of  the  spreading  rain,  but  no  general  shower.* 

In  his  Journal,  under  the  date  of  November  20,  17-39,  White- 
field  has  the  following  entry,  relating  to  New  Brunswick :  "  Preached 
about  noon  near  two  hours,  in  worthy  Mr.  Tennent's  meeting-house, 
to  a  large  assembly  gathered  from  all  parts.  About  3  P.  M.  I 
preached  again,  and  at  7  I  baptized  two  children  and  preached  a 
third  time  with  greater  freedom  than  at  either  of  the  former  op- 
portunities. It  is  impossible  to  tell  with  what  pleasure  the  people 
of  God  heard  those  truths  confirmed  by  a  minister  of  the  Church 
of  England,  which,  for  many  years,  had  been  preached  by  their 
own  pastor." 

With  regard  to  the  revival  at  Baskinridge,  about  twenty  miles  to 
the  north  of  New  Brunswick,  we  know  little,  beyond  what  is  stated 
in  Mr.  Whitefield's  Journal,  under  the  date  just  quoted.  He  there 
speaks  of  what  he  had  heard  of  the  wonderful  effusions  of  the  Spirit 
in  that  congregation,  of  the  frequent  sudden  conversions  which 
had  there  occurred,  &c.  &c.  These  are  all,  however,  second-hand 
reports,  on  which  little  reliance  can  be  placed,  especially  as  the 
pastor  of  that  church,  though  making  the  highest  pretensions  to 
zeal  and  piety,  was  left  to  bring  a  sad  disgrace  upon  the  ministry 
and  upon  the  revival  of  which  he  was  one  of  the  most  prominent 
advocates. 

Whitefield  visited  Philadelphia  in  November,  1739.  He  found 
the  Episcopal  churches,  for  a  time,  freely  opened  to  him.  On  one 
occasion,  he  says,  "After  I  had  done  preaching,  a  young  gentle- 
man, once  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  now  secretary 
to  Mr.  Penn,  stood  up,  and  with  a  loud  voice  warned  the  people 
against  the  doctrine  which  I  had  been  delivering  ;  urging  that  there 
was  no  such  term  as  imputed  righteousness  in  Holy  Scripture,  and 
that  such  a  doctrine  put  a  stop  to  all  goodness.     When  he  had 

*  Letter  to  Rev.  Mr.  Prince,  dated  Philadelphia,  August  2-4,  1744. — Chris- 
tian History,  Nos.  88,  89,  90. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  29 

ended,  I  denied  his  first  proposition,  and  brought  a  text  to  prove 
that  imputed  righteousness  was  a  scriptural  expression ;  but  think- 
ing the  church  an  improper  place  for  disputation,  I  said  no  more 
at  that  time.  The  portion  of  Scripture  appointed  to  be  read,  was 
Jeremiah  xxiii.,  wherein  are  the  words,  '  The  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness.' Upon  them  I  discoursed  in  the  afternoon,  and  showed  how 
the  Lord  Jesus  was  to  be  our  whole  righteousness ;  proved  how  the 
contrary  doctrine  overthrew  divine  revelation  ;  answered  the  ob- 
jections that  were  made  against  the  doctrine  of  an  imputed  right- 
eousness ;  produced  the  Articles  of  our  Church  to  illustrate  it ; 
and  concluded  with  an  exhortation  to  all,  to  submit  to  Jesus  Christ, 
who  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieveth.  The  word  came  with  power.  The  church  was  thronged 
within  and  without ;  all  wonderfully  attentive,  and  many,  as  I  was 
informed,  convinced  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  our  righteous- 
ness." 

Whitefield's  sentiments,  manner  of  preaching,  and  clerical  habits 
were  so  little  in  accordance  with  those  of  the  majority  of  his  Epis- 
copal brethren,  that  this  harmonious  intercourse  did  not  long  con- 
tinue. Their  pulpits  were  soon  closed  against  him,  and  he  com- 
menced preaching  in  the  open  air.  One  of  his  favourite  stations 
was  the  balcony  of  the  old  court-house  in  Market  street.  Here  he 
would  take  his  stand,  while  his  audience  arranged  themselves  on 
the  declivity  of  the  hill  on  which  the  court-house  stood.*  The 
effects  produced  in  Philadelphia  by  his  preaching,  "  were  truly 
astonishing.  Numbers  of  all  denominations,  and  many  who  had 
no  connection  with  any  denomination,  were  brought  to  inquire,  with 
the  utmost  earnestness,  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved.  Such  was 
the  eagerness  of  the  multitude  for  spiritual  instruction,  that  there 
was  public  worship  regularly  twice  a  day  for  a  year ;  and  on  the 
Lord's  day  it  was  celebrated  thrice,  and  frequently  four  times. "f 

*  It  is  said  that  his  voice  was  so  distinct,  that  every  word  he  uttered,  while 
preaching  from  the  court-house,  could  be  heard  by  persons  in  a  vessel  at  Market 
street  wharf,  a  distance  of  more  than  four  hundred  feet.  It  is  even  stated  that 
his  voice  was  heard  on  the  Jersey  shore,  a  distance  of  at  least  a  mile. —  Gillies' 
Life  of  Whitefield,  p.  39. 

f  Memoirs  of  Mrs.  Hannah  Hodge,  Philadelphia,  1806. 


30  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

During  the  winter  of  1739-40,  Whitefield  visited  the  South,  and 
returned  to  Philadelphia  by  sea  the  following  spring.  His  friends 
now  erected  a  stage  for  him  on  what  was  called  Society  Hill,  where 
he  preached  for  some  time  to  large  and  deeply  affected  audiences. 
When  he  left  the  city,  he  urged  his  followers  to  attend  the  ministry 
of  the  Tennents  and  their  associates.  These  gentlemen,  accord- 
ingly, continued  to  labour  among  the  people,  and  thus  cherished 
and  extended  the  impressions  produced  by  Whitefield's  preaching. 
In  the  course  of  this  year,  he  collected  funds  for  the  erection  of  a 
permanent  building  for  the  use  of  itinerant  ministers.  This  house 
afterwards  became  the  seat  of  the  college,  and  subsequently,  uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania.  Here  Whitefield  preached  whenever  he 
visited  the  city,  and  here  his  associates,  especially  the  Tennents, 
and  Messrs.  Rowland,  Blair,  and  Finley,  ministered  during  his 
absence. 

In  1743,  the  people  who  had  been  accustomed  to  attend  upon 
the  occasional  ministrations  of  the  above-named  gentlemen,  deter- 
mined to  form  themselves  into  a  church,  and  to  call  a  stated  pastor. 
They  accordingly  presented  a  call  to  the  Rev.  Gilbert  Tennent, 
who  accepted  their  invitation,  and  was  installed  over  them  by  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick.  In  the  letter  already  quoted,  Mr. 
Tennent,  after  speaking  of  the  low  state  of  religion  in  Philadelphia, 
before  the  visits  of  Mr.  Whitefield,  and  of  the  immediate  effects  of 
his  preaching,  says,  that  though  some  who  were  then  awakened 
had  lost  their  seriousness,  and  others  fallen  into  erroneous  doctrines, 
yet  many  gave  every  rational  evidence  of  being  true  Christians. 
That  some  should  have  been  led  astray  by  the  fair  speeches  and 
cunning  craftiness  of  those  that  lie  in  wait  to  deceive,  he  thought 
was  not  to  be  wondered  at,  considering  that  the  greater  portion  of 
them  had  not  had  the  benefit  of  a  strict  religious  education.  He 
says  he  knew  of  none,  who  had  been  well  acquainted  with  the 
doctrines  of  religion,  in  their  connection,  and  established  in  them, 
who  had  been  thus  turned  aside. 

In  May,  1744,  he  administered  the  Lord's  supper  to  his  people, 
for  the  first  time,  as  a  distinct  church.  The  number  of  commu- 
nicants was  above  one  hundred  and  forty,  almost  all  of  whom  were 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  31 

the  fruits  of  the  recent  revival.  Besides  these,  many  others  con- 
nected with  other  churches  were  regarded  as  Mr.  Whitefield's  con- 
verts. Mr.  Tennent  concludes  his  account  by  stating,  that  though 
there  was  a  considerable  falling  off  in  the  liveliness  of  the  religious 
feeling  of  the  people,  yet  they  were  growing  more  humble  and 
merciful,  and  that  their  whole  conversation  made  it  evident  that 
the  bent  of  their  hearts  was  towards  God.* 

The  Rev.  Samuel  Blair  gives  substantially  the  following  account 
of  the  revival  in  New  Londonderry,  (Fagg's  Manor,)  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. The  congregation  was  formed  in  that  place  about  the  year 
1725,  and  consisted,  as  did  all  the  Presbyterian  churches  in  Penn- 
sylvania, with  two  or  three  exceptions,  of  emigrants  from  Ireland. 
Mr.  Blair,  who  was  the  first  pastor  of  the  church  at  Londonderry, 
was  installed  there,  November,  1739.  During  that  winter,  some 
four  or  five  persons  were  brought  under  deep  convictions ;  and  in 
the  following  March,  during  a  temporary  absence  of  the  pastor, 
while  a  neighbouring  minister  was  preaching  in  his  place,  such  a 
powerful  impression  was  made  upon  the  people,  that  some  of  them 
broke  out  into  audible  crying ;  a  thing  previously  unknown  in  that 
part  of  the  country.  A  similar  effect  was  produced  by  the  first 
sermon  preached  by  Mr.  Blair,  after  his  return.  The  number  of 
the  awakened  now  increased  very  fast,  and  the  Sabbath  assemblies 
were  exceedingly  large,  people  coming  from  all  quarters  to  a  place 
where  there  was  an  appearance  of  the  divine  presence  and  power. 
There  was  scarcely  a  sermon  preached  during  that  summer,  with- 
out manifest  evidence  of  a  deep  impression  being  made  upon  the 
hearers.  Often  this  impression  was  very  great  and  general ;  some 
would  be  overcome  to  fainting ;  others  deeply  sobbing ;  others  cry- 
ing aloud  ;  while  others  would  be  weeping  in  silence.  In  some  few 
cases,  the  exercises  were  attended  by  strange  convulsive  agitations 
of  the  body.  It  was  found  that  the  greater  portion  of  those  thus 
seriously  affected  were  influenced  by  a  fixed  and  rational  convic- 
tion of  their  dangerous  condition. 

The  general  behaviour  of  the  people  was  soon  very  manifestly 
altered.     Those  who  were  concerned,  spent  much  time  in  reading 

*  Letter  to  Mr.  Prince,  No.  89. 


32  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  Bible  and  other  good  books,  and  it  was  a  great  satisfaction  to 
the  people  to  find  how  exactly  the  doctrines  which  they  daily  heard 
preached  to  them,  agreed  with  those  taught  by  godly  men  in  other 
places  and  in  former  times.  Mr.  Blair  insisted  much  in  his  preach- 
ing upon  the  miserable  state  of  man  by  nature,  on  the  way  of 
recovery  through  Jesus  Christ,  on  the  nature  and  necessity  of 
faith,  warning  his  hearers  not  to  depend  upon  their  repentance, 
prayers,  or  reformation  ;  nor  to  seek  peace  in  extraordinary  ways, 
by  visions,  dreams,  or  immediate  inspirations,  but  by  an  understand- 
ing view  and  believing  persuasion  of  the  way  of  life,  as  revealed  in 
the  gospel,  through  the  suretyship — obedience  and  sufferings  of 
Jesus  Christ.  His  righteousness  they  were  urged  to  accept  as  the 
only  means  of  justification  and  life. 

Many  of  those  who  were  convinced,  soon  gave  satisfactory 
evidence  that  God  had  brought  them  to  a  saving  faith  in  Christ. 
In  most  cases,  the  Holy  Spirit  seemed  to  use  for  this  purpose  some 
particular  passage  of  the  Scriptures,  some  promise  or  some  declara- 
tion of  the  way  of  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ.  In  others,  there 
was  no  such  prominence  in  the  mind  of  the  inquirer,  given  to  any 
one  particular  passage.  Those  who  experienced  such  remarkable 
relief  could  not  only  give  a  rational  account  of  the  change  in  their 
feelings,  but  also  exhibited  the  usual  fruits  of  a  genuine  faith ;  par- 
ticularly humility,  love,  and  affectionate  regard  to  the  will  and  hon- 
our of  God.  Much  of  their  exercises  was  in  self-abasing  and  self- 
loathing,  and  admiring  the  astonishing  condescension  and  grace  of 
God  towards  those  who  were  so  unworthy.  They  freely  and 
sweetly  chose  the  way  of  his  commands,  and  were  desirous  to  live 
according  to  his  will  and  to  the  glory  of  his  name.  There  were 
others  who  had  no  such  lively  exercises,  and  yet  gave  evidence  of 
faith  in  Christ,  though  it  was  not  attended  with  such  a  degree  of 
liberty  and  joy.  Such  persons,  however,  generally  long  continued 
to  be  suspicious  of  their  own  case. 

As  to  the  permanent  results  of  this  work,  it  is  stated  that  those 
who  had  merely  some  slight  impressions  of  a  religious  character, 
soon  lost  them  ;  and  some  who  were  for  a  time  greatly  distressed, 
seemed  to  have  found  peace  in  some  other  way  than  through  faith 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  33 

in  Christ.  There  were,  however,  a  considerable  number  who  gave 
scriptural  evidence  of  having  been  savingly  renewed.  Their  walk 
was  habitually  tender  and  conscientious  ;  their  carriage  towards 
their  neighbours  was  just  and  kind,  and  they  had  a  peculiar  love  to 
all  who  bore  the  image  of  God.  They  endeavoured  to  live  for  God, 
and  were  much  grieved  on  account  of  their  imperfections,  and  the 
plague  of  their  hearts.  Entire  harmony  prevailed  in  the  congre- 
gation. Indeed  there  was  scarcely  any  open  opposition  to  the  work 
from  the  beginning,  though  some  few  of  the  people  withdrew,  and 
joined  the  ministers  who  unhappily  opposed  the  revival. 

During  the  summer  of  1740,  the  shower  of  divine  influence 
spread  extensively  through  Pennsylvania,  and  beyond  the  borders 
of  that  province.  Certain  ministers  distinguished  for  their  zeal 
were  earnestly  sought  for  in  all  directions  ;  vacant  congregations 
solicited  their  services ;  and  even  some  of  the  clergy  who  were  not 
disposed  heartily  to  co-operate  in  the  work,  yielded  to  the  importu- 
nity of  their  people,  and  invited  those  ministers  to  visit  their  con- 
gregations. Great  assemblies  would  ordinarily  meet  to  hear  them, 
upon  any  day  of  the  week,  and  frequently  a  surprising  power 
attended  their  preaching.  Great  numbers  were  thus  convinced  of 
their  perishing  condition,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
many  were  savingly  converted  to  God.* 

Among  the  places  in  Pennsylvania  particularly  favoured  during 
this  season,  were  New  Providence,  Nottingham,  White  Clay  Creek, 
and  Neshaminy.  With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  places,  Mr. 
Rowland,  who  after  leaving  New  Jersey  laboured  much  among  those 
churches,  says  that  it  was  while  he  was  travelling  among  them  that 
God  chose  as  the  time  of  their  ingathering  to  Christ,  and  that  since 
he  laboured  statedly  among  those  people  he  was  as  much  engaged 
in  endeavouring  to  build  up  those  who  had  been  called  into  fellow- 
ship with  God,  as  to  awaken  and  convince  the  careless.  "  As  to 
their  conviction,  and  conversion  unto  God,"  he  adds,  "they  are  able 
to  give  a  scriptural  account  of  them.  I  forbear  to  speak  of  many 
extraordinary  appearances,  such  as  scores  crying  out  at  one  instant, 

*  Letter  of  Mr.  Blair  to  Mr.  Prince,  dated  August,  6,  1744,  Christian  His 
tory,  No.  83  ;  published  also  in  Mr.  Blair's  Works,  p.  336. 
VOL.  II. — 3 


3t  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

falling,  .and  fainting.  These  people  are  still  increasing,  blessed  be 
the  Lord,  and  are  labouring  to  walk  in  communion  with  God  and 
one  another."* 

Whitefield  mentions  his  having  preached  at  Neshaminy  on  the 
23d  of  April,  1740,  to  more  than  five  thousand  persons;  "upwards 
of  fifty,"  he  adds,  "  I  hear,  have  lately  been  brought  under  convic- 
tion of  sin  in  this  place."  With  regard  to  Nottingham  he  gives 
the  following  account.  "  There  a  good  work  had  begun  some  time 
ago,  by  the  ministry  of  Mr.  Blair,  Messrs.  Tennent,  and  Mr.  Cross  ; 
the  last  of  whom  was  denied  the  use  of  the  pulpit,  and  was  obliged 
to  preach  in  the  woods,  where  the  Lord  manifested  his  glory,  and 
caused  many  to  cry  out,  What  shall  we  do  to  be  saved  ?  It  surprised 
me  to  see  such  a  multitude  gathered  together  at  so  short  a  notice,  in 
such  a  desert  place.  I  believe  there  were  near  twelve  thousand  hear- 
ers. I  had  not  spoken  long,  when  I  perceived  numbers  melting.  And 
as  I  preached,  the  power  increased,  till  at  last,  both  in  the  morning 
and  afternoon,  thousands  cried  out,  so  that  they  almost  drowned  my 
voice.  Never  before  did  I  see  a  more  glorious  sight.  0  what  strong 
crying  and  tears  were  shed  and  poured  forth  after  the  dear  Lord 
Jesus  !  Some  fainted ;  and  when  they  had  got  a  little  strength, 
would  hear  and  faint  again.  Others  cried  out  in  a  manner  almost 
as  if  they  were  in  the  sharpest  agonies  of  death.  I  think  I  was 
never  myself  filled  with  greater  power.  After  I  had  finished  my 
last  discourse,  I  was  so  pierced,  as  it  were,  and  overpowered  with 
God's  love,  that  some  thought,  I  believe,  that  I  was  about  to  give 
up  the  ghost."  The  next  day  he  preached  at  Fagg's  Manor,  where 
the  congregation  was  nearly  as  large  as  it  had  been  at  Nottingham, 
and  "  the  commotion  in  the  hearts  of  the  people"  as  great,  if  not 
greater. 

It  .is  evident  there  must  have  been  an  extraordinary  influence  on 
the  minds  of  the  people  to  produce  such  vast  assemblies,  and  such 
striking  effects  from  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  There  is  no  rea- 
son to  doubt  that  there  was  much  that  was  rational  and  scriptural 
in  the  experience  of  the  persons  thus  violently  agitated ;  yet  there 
can  be  as  little  doubt  that  much  of  the  outward  effect  above  de- 

*  Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  324. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  3,5 

scribed  was  the  result  of  mere  natural  excitement,  produced  by 
powerful  impressions  made  upon  excited  imaginations  by  the  fervid 
eloquence  of  the  preacher,  and  propagated  through  the  crowd  by 
the  mysterious  influence  of  sympathy. 

Mr.  Whitefield  preached  in  New  York  repeatedly,  during  his 
second  and  third  visits  to  this  country,  and  was  kindly  received  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Pemberton,  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  ..that 
city,  but  no  very  remarkable  results  seem  to  have  there  attended 
his  ministry. 

In  no  part  of  our  country  was  the  revival  more  interesting,  and 
in  very  few  was  it  so  pure  as  in  Virginia.  The  state  of  religion 
in  that  province  was  deplorable.  There  was  "  a  surprising  negli- 
gence in  attending  public  worship,  and  an  equally  surprising  levity 
and  unconcernedness  in  those  that  did  attend.  Family  religion  a 
rarity,  and  a  solemn  concern  about  eternal  things  a  greater.  Vices 
of  various  kinds  triumphant,  and  even  a  form  of  godliness  not  com- 
mon."* "Much  the  larger  portion  of  the  clergy  were,  at  this 
time,  deficient  in  the  great  duty  of  placing  distinctly  before  the 
people  the  fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel. "f  Various  circum- 
stances had  conspired  to  supply  the  established  church  of  Virginia 
with  ministers  unfitted  for  their  stations ;  and  under  the  influence 
of  men  unqualified  to  be  either  the  teachers  or  examples  of  their 
flocks,  religion  had  been  reduced  to  a  very  low  state.  There  were 
indeed  some  faithful  ministers,  and  some  who  were  sincerely  seeking 
the  Lord  in  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England.!  Still  all 
accounts  agree  as  to  the  general  prevalence  of  irreligion  among 
both  the  clergy  and  the  laity. 

It  seems  that  even  before  the  year  1740,  some  persons  had  been 
led,  partly  by  their  own  reflections,  and  partly  by  the  perusal  of 
some  of  the  writings  of  Flavel  and  others,  to  feel  a  deep  interest 
in  the  concerns  of  religion.  This  was  the  case  particularly  with 
Mr.  Samuel  Morris,  who  having  obtained  relief  to  his  own  mind, 
became  anxious  for  the  salvation  of  his  neighbours.     He  accord- 

*  Davies's  Letter  to  Mr.  Bellamy,  Gillies'  Collection,  voL  ii.  p.  330. 
f  Hawks's  Contributions  to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  United  States, 
vol.  i.  p.  115.  %  Davies's  Narrative. 


36  PREFBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ingly  began  to  read  to  them  the  works  which  he  had  found  so  use- 
ful to  himself,  especially  Luther  on  the  Galatians.  In  the  year 
1740,  Mr.  Whitefield  preached  at  Williamsburg.  Though  the  little 
company,  of  which  Mr.  Morris  was  the  centre,  did  not  enjoy  the 
advantage  of  hearing  Mr.  Whitefield  preach,  his  visit  awakened 
interest  in  the  man,  and  prepared  them  to  receive  his  writings  with 
favour.  Accordingly,  when  in  1743,  a  volume  of  his  sermons  was 
brought  into  the  neighbourhood,  Mr.  Morris  invited  his  friends  to 
meet  and  hear  them  read.  A  considerable  number  of  persons  at- 
tended for  this  purpose  every  Sabbath,  and  frequently  on  other 
days.  Mr.  Morris'  dwelling  being  too  small  to  accommodate  his 
audience,  a  meeting-house  was  soon  erected,  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  reading ;  not  being  accustomed  to  extempore  prayer,  no  one  of 
the  company  had  courage  to  attempt  to  lead  in  that  exercise.  The 
attention  thus  excited  gradually  diffused  itself,  so  that  Mr.  Morris 
was  frequently  invited  to  distant  places  to  read  his  sermons  to  the 
people.  These  meetings  soon  attracted  the  attention  of  the  magis- 
trates, and  those  who  frequented  them  were  called  upon  to  account 
for  their  non-attendance  on  the  services  of  the  established  church, 
and  to  state  to  what  denomination  of  Christians  they  belonged. 
This  latter  demand  puzzled  them  not  a  little.  The  only  dissenters 
of  whom  they  knew  any  thing  were  Quakers,  and  as  they  were  not 
Quakers,  they  could  not  tell  what  they  were.  At  length  recollect- 
ing that  Luther  was  a  great  reformer,  and  that  his  writings  had 
been  particularly  serviceable  to  them,  they  determined  to  call  them- 
selves Lutherans.  About  this  time,  the  Rev.  William  Robinson, 
on  a  mission  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  visited  that 
part  of  Virginia.  He  founded  a  church  in  Lunenburg,  now  Char- 
lotte, and  preached  with  much  success.  Also  in  Hanover,  Mr. 
Morris  and  his  friends  begged  him  to  preach  in  their  reading-house, 
an  invitation  which  he  gladly  accepted.  "  The  congregation,"  says 
Mr.  Morris,  "  was  large  the  first  day,  and  vastly  increased  the 
three  ensuing  ones.  It  is  hard  for  the  liveliest  imagination  to  form 
an  image  of  the  condition  of  the  assembly  on  those  glorious  days 
of  the  Son  of  man.  Such  of  us  as  had  been  hungering  for  the 
word  before,  were  lost  in  agreeable  astonishment,  and  could  not 
refrain   from   publicly  declaring   our  transport.      We  were   over- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  61 

whelmed  with  the  thoughts  of  the  unexpected  goodness  of  God,  in 
allowing  us  to  hear  the  gospel  preached  in  a  manner  which  sur- 
passed our  hopes.  Many  that  came  from  curiosity  were  pricked  in 
the  heart,  and  hut  few  in  the  numerous  assemblies  appeared  unaf- 
fected." Soon  after  Mr.  Robinson's  departure, i  the  Rev.  John 
Blair  visited  them,  when  former  impressions  were  revived  and  new 
ones  made  in  many  hearts.  He  was  succeeded  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Roan,  who  was  sent  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  and  con- 
tinued with  them  longer  than  either  of  the  others.  The  good  ef- 
fects of  this  gentleman's  labours  were  very  apparent.  He  was 
instrumental  in  beginning  and  promoting  a  religious  concern,  in 
many  places  where  there  was  little  appearance  of  it  before.  "  This, 
together  with  his  speaking  pretty  freely  of  the  degeneracy  of  the 
clergy  in  this  colony,"  says  Mr.  Morris,  "gave  a  general  alarm, 
and  some  measures  were  concerted  to  suppress  us.  To  increase  the 
indignation  of  the  government  the  more,  a  perfidious  wretch  de- 
posed that  he  heard  Mr.  Roan  utter  blasphemous  expressions  in 
his  sermon.  An  indictment  was  accordingly  drawn  up  against  Mr. 
R.,  though  he  had  by  that  time  departed  the  colony,  and  some  who 
had  invited  him  to  preach  at  their  houses  were  cited  to  appear  be- 
fore the  general  court,  and  two  of  them  were  fined."  The  indict- 
ment, however,  against  Mr.  Roan  was  dropped,  the  witnesses  cited 
against  him  testifying  in  his  favour,  and  his  accuser  fled  the  pro- 
vince. Still  as  the  opposition  of  those  in  authority  continued,  and 
"  all  circumstances  seeming  to  threaten  the  extirpation  of  religion 
among  the  dissenters,"  they  determined  to  apply  to  the  Synod  of 
New  York  for  advice  and  assistance.  This  application  was  made 
in  1745,  when  that  body  drew  up  an  address  to  the  governor,  Sir 
William  Gooch,  and  sent  it  by  Messrs.  William  Tennent  and  Sam- 
uel Finley.  These  gentlemen  having  been  kindly  received  by  the 
governor,  were  allowed  to  preach,  and  remained  about  a  week. 
After  their  departure,  the  meetings  for  reading  and  prayer  were 
continued,  though  Mr.  Morris  was  repeatedly  fined  for  absenting 
himself  from  church  and  keeping  up  unlawful  assemblies.  In 
1747,  the  opposition  of  the  government  became  more  serious,  and 
a  proclamation  was  affixed  to  the  door  of  the  meeting-house,  calling 
on  the  magistrates  to  prevent  all  itinerant  preaching.     This  pre 


38  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

vented  the  usual  services  for  one  Sabbath,  but  before  the  succeed- 
ing Lord's  day  the  Rev.  Mr.  Davies  arrived  in  the  neighbourhood, 
having  been  sent  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  and  legally 
qualified  to  preach  according  to  the  act  of  toleration.  He  peti- 
tioned the  general  court  for  permission  to  officiate  in  four  meeting- 
houses in  and  about  Hanover,  and  his  request,  after  some  delay, 
was  granted.  Ill  health  prevented  Mr.  Davies  from  commencing 
his  labours  among  this  people  as  their  pastor,  until  the  spring  of 
1748.  In  October,  1748,  three  additional  places  of  worship  were 
licensed.  The  people  under  his  charge  were  sufficiently  numerous, 
if  compactly  situated,  to  form  three  distinct  congregations.  In 
1751,  the  date  of  Mr.  Davies's  narrative,  there  were  three  hundred 
communicants  in  these  infant  churches.  There  were  at  this  period 
two  other  Presbyterian  congregations,  one  in  Albemarle,  and  the 
other  in  Augusta,  which  were  supplied  with  ministers  in  connection 
with  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia.  The  Presbyterians  in  Virginia, 
in  connection  with  the  Synod  of  New  York,  though  much  more 
numerous  than  those  belonging  to  the  other  Synod,  were,  except 
the  churches  in  Hanover,  destitute  of  pastors.  President  Davies 
says  they  were  numerous  enough  to  form  at  least  five  congrega- 
tions ;  three  in  Augusta,  one  in  Frederick,  and  one  in  Amelia  and 
Lunenburg.  "  Were  you  a  bigot,"  says  Mr.  Davies  to  Dr.  Bel- 
lamy, "  you  would  no  doubt  rejoice  to  hear  that  there  are  hundreds 
of  dissenters  in  a  place  where  a  few  years  ago  there  were  not  ten  ;* 
but  I  assure  myself  of  your  congratulations  on  a  nobler  account, 
because  a  considerable  number  of  perishing  sinners  are  gained  to 
the  blessed  Redeemer,  with  whom,  though  you  never  see  them 
here,  you  may  spend  a  blissful  eternity.  After  all,  poor  Virginia 
demands  your  compassion ;  religion  at  present  is  but  like  the  cloud 
which  Elijah's  servant  saw."f 

*  This  remark  of  course  relates  to  Hanover,  where  President  Davies  was 
settled.  The  Presbyterians  in  the  other  counties  were  principally  Scotch  and 
Irish  emigrants  from  Pennsylvania. 

f  Letter  of  Mr.  Davies  to  Mr.  Bellamy,  dated  June  28,  1751.— Gillies'  Col- 
lections, vol.  ii.  p.  330. 

My  venerated  father  in  Christ,  Dr.  Alexander,  remarked  on  part  of  the 
above  narrative  in  relation  to  the  establishment  of  Presbyterian  congregations 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  39 

While  the  revival  was  thus  extending  itself  through  almost  all 
parts  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  was  perhaps  still  more  general 
and  remarkable  throughout  New  England.  In  Northampton,  where 
President  Edwards  had  been  settled  since  1726,  there  had  been  a 
revival  in  1734-35,  which  extended  more  or  less  through  Hamp- 
shire county,  and  to  many  adjoining  places  in  Connecticut.*     In 

in  Virginia,  that  it  would  not  be  very  intelligible  to  Virginians.  "  The  coun- 
ties of  Amelia  and  Lunenburg  are  mentioned  as  the  seat  of  nourishing  con- 
gregations ;  now  those  counties  as  at  present  bounded  have  scarcely  ever  had 
more  than  a  sprinkling  of  Presbyterian  families.  When  Mr.  Morris's  letter 
was  written,  Cumberland  and  Prince  Edward  counties  formed  part  of  Amelia, 
and  Charlotte  of  Lunenburg,  and  these  were  the  counties  in  which  Presbyte- 
rian congregations  were  planted,  and  where  they  flourish  to  this  day.  So  also, 
Augusta  at  that  time  comprehended  all  the  great  valley  from  Frederick  south- 
westward  ;  since  then,  Rockbridge  on  the  south-west,  and  Rockingham  on  the 
north-east,  have  been  taken  off  and  formed  into  new  counties.  The  Presbyte- 
rians of  what  is  now  Augusta,  were  mostly  of  the  old-side,  but  those  of  Rock- 
bridge were  of  the  new-side." 

Dr.  Alexander  further  remarked,  "  That  very  little  is  said  in  the  above 
narrative,  concerning  the  labours  of  Mr.  Davies.  He,  in  his  modesty,  speaks 
as  if  Mr.  Robinson  had  converted  more  souls  in  a  few  days,  than  he  in  eight 
years.  But  I  can  bear  witness  that,  half  a  century  after  Mr.  Davies's  depart- 
ure, I  met  with  numerous  Christians  of  eminent  piety,  who  acknowledged 
him  as  the  instrument  of  their  awakening.  Every  spring  and  fall  he  was 
accustomed  to  take  an  extensive  tour  for  preaching.  He  generally  preached 
in  the  woods  to  numerous  congregations,  and  multitudes  were  benefited  sav- 
ingly by  him,  of  whom  he  never  knew  any  thing.  He  was  also  very  atten- 
tive to  the  blacks,  and  had  many  of  them  taught  to  read ;  and  by  the  assist- 
ance of  the  society  in  London  for  propagating  Christianity,  he  supplied  them 
with  Bibles  and  Watts's  Hymns.  I  knew  three  old  men,  born  in  Africa, 
brought  over  when  boys,  who  were  members  of  his  church,  and  could  all  read 
and  were  eminent  for  piety.  There  is  no  where  in  print  any  just  account  of 
Mr.  Davies's  evangelical  labours  in  Virginia.  While  he  preached  faithfully, 
he  conducted  himself  with  so  much  dignity,  affability,  and  prudence,  that  he 
gained  the  high  respect  of  all  the  distinguished  laymen  in  that  part  of  the 
State.  "  The  melancholy  decline  of  the  Hanover  congregation  after  his  re- 
moval, was  owing  to  a  variety  of  causes,  chiefly  to  the  emigration  of  the  mem- 
bers. Many  of  the  congregations  in  the  newer  parts  of  the  State  were  com- 
menced by  members  of  his  congregation." 

*  Edwards's  Narrative,  &c,  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  25. 


40  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

the  spring  of  1740,  before  the  visit  of  Mr.  Whitefield,  there  was 
a  growing  seriousness  through  the  town,  especially  among  the 
young  people.  When  that  gentleman  came  to  the  place  in  Octo- 
ber, he  preached  four  or  five  sermons  with  his  usual  force  and  in- 
fluence. In  about  a  month  there  was  a  great  alteration  in  the 
town,  both  in  the  increased  fervour  and  activity  of  professors  of 
religion,  and  in  the  awakened  attention  of  sinners.  In  May,  1741, 
a  sermon  was  preached  at  a  private  house,  when  one  or  two  persons 
were  so  affected  by  the  greatness  and  glory  of  divine  things,  that 
they  were  not  able  to  conceal  it,  the  affection  of  their  minds  over- 
coming their  strength,  and  having  an  effect  on  their  bodies.  After 
the  exercises,  the  young  people  removed  to  another  room  to  inquire 
of  those  thus  exercised,  what  impressions  they  had  experienced. 
The  affection  was  quickly  propagated  round  the  room  ;  many  of 
the  young  people  and  children  appeared  to  be  overcome  with  the 
sense  of  divine  things,  and  others  with  distress  about  their  sinful- 
ness and  danger,  so  that  "  the  room  was  full  of  nothing  but  out- 
cries, faintings,  and  such  like."  Others  soon  came  to  look  on  ; 
many  of  whom  were  overpowered  in  like  manner.  The  months  of 
August  and  September  of  this  year  were  most  remarkable  for  the 
number  of  convictions  and  conversions,  for  the  revival  of  profes- 
sors, and  for  the  external  effects  of  this  state  of  excitement.  It 
was  no  uncommon  thing  to  see  a  house,  as  Edwards  expresses  it, 
full  of  outcries,  faintings,  convulsions,  and  the  like,  both  from  dis- 
tress, and  also  from  admiration  and  joy.  The  work  continued  much 
in  the  same  state  until  February,  1742,  when  Mr.  Buel  came  and 
laboured  among  the  people  during  a  temporary  absence  of  the  pas- 
tor. The  effect  of  his  preaching  was  very  extraordinary.  The 
people  were  greatly  moved,  great  numbers  crying  out  during  public 
worship,  and  many  remaining  in  the  house  for  hours  after  the  ser- 
vices were  concluded.  The  whole  town  was  in  a  great  and  con- 
tinual commotion  night  and  day.  Mr.  Buel  remained  a  fortnight 
after  Mr.  Edwards's  return,  and  the  same  effects  continued  to  attend 
his  preaching.  There  were  instances  of  persons  lying  twenty-four 
hours  in  a  trance,  apparently  senseless,  though  under  strong  imagi- 
nations, as  though  they  went  to  heaven  and  had  there  visions  of 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  41 

glorious  objects.  When  the  people  were  raised  to  this  height,  Satan 
took  the  advantage,  and  his  interpositions,  in  many  instances,  soon 
became  apparent,  and  a  great  deal  of  pains  was  necessary  to  keep 
the  people  from  running  wild. 

President  Edwards  states,  that  he  considered  this  revival  much 
more  pure  than  that  of  1734-5,  at  least  during  the  years  1740, 
1741,  and  the  early  part  of  1742.  Towards  the  close  of  the  last- 
mentioned  year,  an  unfavourable  influence  was  exerted  upon  the 
congregation  from  abroad.  This  remark  shows  that  he  did  not 
consider  the  scenes  which  he  describes  as  attending  Mr.  Buel's 
preaching,  as  affording  any  reason  to  doubt  the  purity  of  the 
revival.  What  he  disapproved  of  occurred  at  a  later  period,  and 
had  a  different  origin.  When  his  people  saw  that  there  were  greater 
commotions  in  other  places,  and  when  they  heard  of  greater  pro- 
fessions of  zeal  and  rapture  than  were  common  among  themselves, 
they  thought  others  had  made  higher  attainments  in  religion,  and 
were  thus  led  away  by  them.  These  things  plainly  show,  says  Mr. 
Edwards,  that  the  degree  of  grace  is  not  to  be  judged  by  the 
degree  of  zeal  or  joy ;  that  it  is  not  the  strength,  but  the  nature 
of  religious  affections  which  is  to  be  regarded.  Some,  who  had  the 
highest  raptures,  and  the  greatest  bodily  exercises,  showed  the 
least  of  a  Ctmstian  temper.  Though  there  were  few  cases  of  scan- 
dalous sin  among  professors,  the  temper  and  behaviour  of  some,  he 
adds,  led  him  to  fear  that  a  considerable  number  were  awfully 
deceived.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  many  whose  temper  was 
truly  Christian ;  and  the  work,  notwithstanding  its  corrupt  admix- 
tures, produced  blessed  fruit  in  particular  persons,  and  some  good 
effects  in  the  town  in  general.* 

If  such  scenes  as  those  just  referred  to  occurred  in  Northampton, 
under  the  eye  of  President  Edwards,  we  may  readily  imagine  what 
was  likely  to  occur  in  other  places  under  men  far  his  inferiors  in 
judgment,  knowledge,  and  piety.  Though  Edwards  never  regarded 
these  outcries  and  bodily  affections  as  any  evidence  of  true  reli- 
gious affections,  he  was  at  this  time  much  less  sensible  of  the  dan- 

*  Letter  of  Mr.  Edwards  to  Mr.  Prince,  dated  December  12,  1743.     Chris 
tian  History,  No.  46,  and  Dwight's  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  160. 


42  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ger  of  encouraging  such  manifestations  of  excitement,  than  he 
afterwards  became.  Nor  does  he  seem  to  have  been  sufficiently 
aware  of  the  nature  and  effects  of  nervous  disorders,  which  in 
times  of  excitement  are  as  infectious  as  any  form  of  disease  to 
which  the  human  system  is  liable.  When  he  speaks  of  certain  per- 
sons being  seized  with  a  strange  bodily  affection,  which  quickly 
propagated  itself  round  the  room,  especially  among  the  young ; 
and  of  spectators,  after  a  while,  being  similarly  affected,  he  gives 
as  plain  an  example  of  the  sympathetic  propagation  of  a  nervous 
disorder,  as  is  to  be  found  in  the  medical  records  of  disease.  There 
may  have  been,  and  no  doubt  there  was,  much  genuine  religious 
feeling  in  that  meeting,  but  these  bodily  affections  were  neither  the 
evidence,  nor,  properly  speaking,  the  result  of  it. 

In  September,  1740,  Mr.  Whitefield  first  visited  Boston,  when 
multitudes  were  greatly  affected  by  his  ministry.  Though  he 
preached  every  day,  the  houses  'continued  to  be  crowded  until  his 
departure.  The  December  following,  Mr.  G.  Tennent  arrived,  whose 
preaching  was  followed  by  still  greater  effects.  Many  hundreds, 
says  Mr.  Prince,  were  brought  by  his  searching  ministry  to  be 
deeply  convinced  of  sin  ;  to  have  clear  views  of  the  divine  sove- 
reignty, holiness,  justice,  and  power ;  of  the  spirituality  and  strict- 
ness of  the  divine  law,  and  of  the  dreadful  corruption  of  their  own 
hearts,  and  "  its  utter  impotence  either  rightly  to  repent  or  believe 
in  Christ,  or  change  itself;"  of  their  utter  unworthiness  in  the 
sight  of  a  righteous  God,  of  their  being  "  without  the  least  degree 
of  strength  to  help  themselves  out  of  this  condition."  On  Monday, 
March  2,  1741,  Mr.  Tennent  preached  his  farewell  sermon,  to  an 
extremely  crowded  and  deeply  affected  audience.  "  And  now  was 
a  time  such  as  we  never  knew.  Mr.  Cooper  was  wont  to  say,  that 
more  came  to  him  in  one  week,  in  deep  concern  about  their  souls, 
than  in  the  whole  twenty-four  years  of  his  previous  ministry."  In 
three  months,  he  had  six  hundred  such  calls,  and  Mr.  Webb  above 
a  thousand.  The  very  face  of  the  town  was  strangely  altered. 
There  were  some  thousands  under  such  religious  impressions  as 
they  never  knew  before ;  and  the  fruits  of  the  work,  says  Mr. 
Cooper,  in  1741,  as  far  as  time  had  been  allowed  to  test  them,  pro- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  43 

mised  to  be  abiding.  The  revival  in  Boston  seems  to  have  been 
much  more  pure  than  in  most  other  places,  and  it  thus  continued 
until  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Davenport  in  June,  1742.  Mr.  Prince 
says  he  met  with  only  one  or  two  persons  who  talked  of  their 
impulses  ;  that  he  knew  of  no  minister  who  encouraged  reliance  on 
such  enthusiastic  impressions.  "  The  doctrinal  principles,"  he  adds, 
"  of  those  who  continue  in  our  congregations,  and  have  been  the 
subjects  of  the  late  revival,  are  the  same  as  they  all  along  have 
been  instructed  in,  from  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism,  which 
has  generally  been  received  and  taught  in  the  churches  of  New 
England,  from  its  first  publication,  for  one  hundred  years  to  the 
present  day ;  and  which  is  therefore  the  system  of  doctrine  most 
generally  and  clearly  declarative  of  the  faith  of  the  New  England 
churches."  There  seems  also  to  have  been  far  less  extravagance  in 
Boston  than  attended  the  excitement  in  most  other  places.  "  We 
have  neither  had,"  says  Dr.  Colman,  "those  outcries  and  faintings 
in  our  assemblies,  which  have  disturbed  the  worship  in  many  places, 
nor  yet  those  manifestations  of  joy  inexpressible  which  now  fill 
some  of  our  eastern  parts."* 

When  Mr.  Whitefield  left  Boston  in  October,  1740,  he  went  to 
Northampton,  preaching  at  most  of  the  intervening  towns.  After 
spending  a  few  days  with  President  Edwards,  as  already  mentioned, 
he  proceeded  to  New  Haven,  and  thence  to  New  York.  Every- 
where, during  this  journey,  the  churches  and  houses  were  freely 
opened  to  him,  and  everywhere,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  his  dis- 
courses were  attended  by  the  same  remarkable  effects  as  elsewhere 
followed  his  preaching.  Mr.  Tennent  also,  after  leaving  Boston, 
made  an  extended  tour  through  New  England,  and  was  very  instru- 
mental in  awakening  the  attention  of  the  people.  His  stature  was 
large,  and  his  whole  appearance  commanding.  He  wore  his  hair 
undressed,  and  his  usual  costume  in  the  pulpit,  at  least  during  this 
journey,  was  a  loose  great  coat  with  a  leathern  girdle  about  his 
loins. f     As  a  preacher  he  had  few  equals.     His  reasoning  powers 

*  See  for  an  account  of  the  revival  in  Boston,  Prince's  Christian  History, 
No.  100,  &c. ;  or  Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  162. 
f  Assembly's  Magazine. 


44  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

were  strong ;  his  expressions  nervous  and  often  sublime ;  his  style 
diffusive  ;  his  manner  warm  and  pathetic,  such  as  must  convince  his 
audience  that  he  was  in  earnest ;  and  his  voice  clear  and  command- 
ing."'- "  When  1  heard  Mr.  Tennent,"  says  the  celebrated  Dr.  Hop- 
kins, then  a  student  in  Yale  College,  "  I  thought  he  was  the  great- 
est and  best  man,  and  the  best  preacher  that  I  had  ever  seen  or 
heard. "f  Mr.  Prince  of  Boston,  says,  "He  did  not  at  first  come 
up  to  my  expectations,  but  afterwards  far  exceeded  them.  He 
seemed  to  have  as  deep  an  acquaintance  with  experimental  religion 
as  any  I  have  ever  conversed  with  ;  and  his  preaching  was  as  search- 
ing and  rousing  as  any  I  ever  heard.  "J  Such  appears  to  have  been 
the  general  style  of  his  preaching  during  this  tour ;  for  the  Rev. 
W,  Fish,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  revival,  says, 
"  When  the  ears  of  the  people  were  thus  opened  to  hear,  and  their 
hearts  awake  to  receive  instruction,  there  came  a  son  of  thunder, 
Rev.  Gilbert  Tennent,  through  these  parts,  by  whose  enlightening 
and  alarming  discourses,  people  were  more  effectually  roused  up, 
and  put  upon  a  more  earnest  inquiry  after  the  great  salvation. "§ 
Mr.  Tennent,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Whitefield,  dated  April,  1741, 
says  that,  on  his  return  homeward  from  Boston,  he  preached  daily, 
ordinarily  three  times  a  day,  and  sometimes  oftener,  (a  few  days 
only  excepted ;)  and  that  his  success  had  far  exceeded  his  expecta- 
tions. He  enumerates  at  least  twenty-three  towns  in  which  he  had 
thus  laboured,  and  adds  that,  on  a  moderate  calculation,  "  divers 
thousands  had  been  awakened.  "|| 

The  transient  impressions,  however,  made  by  a  passing  preacher 
would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  of  little  avail,  had  they  not 
been  followed  by  the  laborious  and  continued  efforts  of  the  settled 
pastors.  Such  efforts  were  in  most  cases  made,  and  the  revival 
soon  became  general  through  almost  the  whole  of  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut,  and  a  considerable  part  of  Rhode  Island.  In  Con- 
necticut, the  work  was  probably  more  extensive  than  in  any  other 

*  Funeral  Discourse  by  President  Finley. 

f  Life  of  Edwards  by  Dwight,  p.  156.  J  Christian  History,  No.  100. 

§  Fish's  Nine  Sermons,  p.  114.  ||  Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  132. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  45 

of  the  colonies,  and  was  greatly  promoted  by  the  labours  of  Messrs. 
Pomeroy,  Mills,  Wheelock,  and  Bellamy.  "  Dr.  Pomeroy  was  a 
man  of  real  genius  ;  grave,  solemn,  and  weighty  in  his  discourses, 
which  were  generally  well  composed,  and  delivered  with  a  great 
degree  of  animation  and  affection.  His  language  was  good,  and  he 
might  be  reckoned  among  the  best  preachers  of  his  day."*  Dr. 
Wheelock,  says  the  same  authority,  "  was  a  gentleman  of  a  comely 
figure,  of  a  mild  and  winning  aspect.  His  voice  smooth  and  har- 
monious, the  best  by  far  that  I  ever  heard.  His  preaching  and 
addresses  were  close  and  pungent,  and  yet  winning  almost  beyond 
all  comparison,  so  that  his  audience  would  be  melted  even  to  tears 
before  they  were  aware  of  it."  Dr.  Bellamy  "was  a  large  man 
and  well  built,  of  a  commanding  appearance.  He  had  a  smooth 
strong  voice,  and  could  fill  the  largest  house  without  any  unnatural 
effort.  He  possessed  a  truly  great  mind  ;  generally  preached  with- 
out notes  ;  had  some  great  point  of  doctrine  commonly  to  establish, 
and  would  keep  close  to  his  subject  until  he  had  sufficiently  illus- 
trated it,  and  then  in  an  ingenious,  close,  and  pungent  manner, 
would  make  the  application. "f  Such  were  the  more  prominent 
promoters  of  this  great  revival.  As  this  work  was  more  extensive 
in  Connecticut  than  elsewhere,  so  it  was  there  attended  with  greater 
disorders,  and  was  more  violently  opposed,  and  in  many  cases  led 
to  disastrous  separations  and  lasting  conflicts.  Severe  penal  laws 
were  enacted  against  itinerant  preaching  ;  several  ministers  were 
transported  out  of  the  colony  ;  others  were  deprived  of  their  salaries 
or  fined.  The  act  for  the  indulgence  of  sober  consciences  was  re- 
pealed in  1743,  so  that  there  "  was  no  relief  for  any  persons  dissent- 
ing from  the  established  mode  of  worship  in  Connecticut,  but  upon 
application  to  the  assembly,  who  were  growing  more  rigid  in  en- 
forcing the  constitution."!  The  General  Association,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  Whitefield's  second  visit  in  1745,  declared  him  to  be  the 
promoter,  or  at  least  the  faulty  occasion  of  the  errors  and  disorders 
which  there  prevailed ;  and  voted  that  it  was  not  advisable  for  the 

*  Trumbull's  Connecticut,  vol.  ii.  p.  157.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  159. 

%  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  173. 


46  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ministers  to  admit  him  into  their  pulpits,  or  for  the  people  to  attend 
his  ministrations.* 

Notwithstanding  all  the  disorders  and  other  evils  attendant  on 
this  revival,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  a  wonderful  display, 
both  of  the  power  and  grace  of  God.  This  might  be  confidently 
inferred  from  the  judgment  of  those  who,  as  eye-witnesses  of  its 
progress,  were  the  best  qualified  to  form  an  opinion  of  its  character. 
The  deliberate  judgment  of  such  men  as  Edwards,  Cooper,  Column, 
and  Bellamy,  in  New  England  ;  and  of  the  Tennents,  Blair,  Dickin- 
son, and  Davies,  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  must  be  received  as 
of  authority  on  such  a  subject.  These  men  were  not  errorists  or 
enthusiasts.  They  were  devout  and  sober-minded  men,  well  versed 
in  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  history  of  religion.  They  had  their 
faults,  and  fell  into  mistakes  ;  some  of  them  very  grievous ;  but  if 
they  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  competent  witnesses  as  to  the  nature 
of  any  religious  excitement,  it  will  be  hard  to  know  where  such  wit- 
nesses are  to  be  found.  Besides  the  testimony  of  these  distinguished 
individuals,  we  have  that  of  a  convention  of  about  ninety  ministers 
met  at  Boston,  July  7,  1743.  Similar  attestations  were  published 
by  several  associations  in  Connecticut  and  elsewhere. f  The  Pres- 
byteries of  New  Brunswick  and  New  Castle,  and  the  whole  Synod 
of  New  York,  repeatedly  and  earnestly  bore  their  testimony  to  the 
genuineness  and  value  of  this  revival. J 

We  have,  however,  ourselves  sufficient  ground  on  which  to  form 
a  judgment  on  this  subject.  We  can  compare  the  doctrines  then 
taught,  the  exercises  experienced,  and  the  effects  produced,  with  the 
word  of  God,  and  thus  learn  how  far  the  work  was  in  accordance 
with  that  infallible  standard.  The  first  of  these  points  is  a  matter 
of  primary  importance.  It  would  be  in  vain  for  any  set  of  men  to 
expect  the  confidence  of  the  Christian  public  in  the  genuineness  of 
any  religious  excitement,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  the  truth 
of  God  was  instrumental  in  its  production.  There  have  been  great 
excitements  where  Pagan,  Mohammedan,  and  Popish  doctrines  were 

*  Trumbull's  Connecticut,  vol.  ii.  p.  190. 

+  Prince's  History,  No.  20,  21.  J  Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  318,  319. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  47 

preached,  but  no  one  regards  such  excitements  with  approbation, 
who  does  not  regard  those  doctrines  as  true.  Any  revival,  there- 
fore, which  claims  the  confidence  of  the  people  of  God,  must  show 
that  it  is  the  child  of  the  truth  of  God.  If  it  cannot  do  this,  it 
may  safely  be  pronounced  spurious.  How  will  the  revival  under 
consideration  abide  this  test?  Is  there  any  doubt  as  to  the  doc- 
trines taught  by  Whitefield,  the  Tennents,  Blair,  Dickinson,  and 
the  other  prominent  preachers  of  that  day  ?  They  were  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformation,  and  of  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Indeed,  these  men  often  went  to  a  length  in  their  state- 
ments of  the  peculiarities  of  those  doctrines,  that  would  shock  the 
delicacy  of  modern  ears.*  These  great  truths  were  not  kept  under 
a  bushel  during  this  period.  They  were  prominently  presented,  and 
gave  to  the  work,  as  far  as  it  was  genuine,  its  distinctive  character. 
"The  doctrines  preached,"  says  Trumbull,  "by  those  famous  men, 
who  were  owned  as  the  principal  instruments  of  this  remarkable  re- 
vival of  God's  work,  were  the  doctrines  of  the  reformers  ;  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin,  of  regeneration  by  the  supernatural  influences 
of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  it,  that  any 
man  might  bear  good  fruit,  or  ever  be  admitted  into  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  effectual  calling  ;  justification  by  faith,  wholly  on  account 
of  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ ;  repentance  towards  God 
and  faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  the  perseverance  of 
saints ;  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  them,  and  its  divine 
consolations  and  joys."f 

The  contemporary  accounts  of  the  doctrines  inculcated  by  the 
zealous  preachers  of  that  day,  fully  sustain  the  statement  just 
quoted.  Edwards  mentions  that  his  sermon  on  justification  by  faith, 
though  it  gave  offence  to  many,  was  greatly  blessed,  and  that  it  was 
on  the  doctrine  therein  taught,  the  revival  was  founded  in  its  begin- 

*  See  Tennent's  Sermons,  especially  those  on  original  sin,  regeneration,  and 
the  nature  and  necessity  of  conversion :  Blair's  Works,  his  Dissertation  on 
Predestination  and  Reprobation  :  President  Dickinson's  Familiar  Letters ;  his 
Dialogues,  his  Five  Points,  &c.  &c.  Whitefield's  Theology  at  least  was  such  as 
to  satisfy  even  Toplady,  who  pronounced  him  a  sound  divine. 

f  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  158. 


48  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ning  sad  during  its  whole  progress.*  In  the  account  of  the  revival 
at  Plymouth,  we  are  told  that  the  doctrines  principally  insisted 
upon,  were  "  the  sin  and  apostasy  of  mankind  in  Adam  ;  the  blind- 
ness of  the  natural  man  in  things  of  God  ;  the  enmity  of  the  carnal 
mind ;  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  ill  desert  of  it ;  the  utter  inability 
of  fallen  man  to  relieve  himself;  the  sovereignty  of  God,  his 
righteousness,  holiness,  truth,  power,  eternity,  and  also  his  grace 
and  mercy  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  the  way  of  redemption  by  Christ ; 
justification  through  his  imputed  righteousness  received  by  faith, 
this  faith  being  a  gift  of  God,  and  a  living  principle  that  worketh 
by  love ;  legal  and  evangelical  repentance ;  the  nature  and  neces- 
sity of  regeneration,  &c."f 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Crocker,  in  his  history  of  the  revival  at  Taunton, 
enumerates  the  doctrines  which  had  been  chiefly  "  blessed  by  God 
to  the  awakening,  convincing,  and  converting  of  sinners,"  or  to 

*  In  that  sermon  he  teaches  that  a  person  is  said  "  to  he  justified  when  he 
is  approved  of  God  as  free  from  the  guilt  of  sin  and  its  deserved  punishment, 
and  as  having  that  righteousness  belonging  to  him  that  entitles  him  to  the 
reward  of  life."  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  354.  He  argues  at  length  against  the 
opinion  that  justification  is  nothing  more  than  pardon.  He  shows  that  the 
righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified  is  not  faith,  nor  any  thing  in  us,  but 
the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  that  in  order  to  our  receiving  that  righteousness 
we  must  be  united  to  him,  and  that  this  union  is  at  once  legal  and  vital. 
Without  union,  he  says,  "our  sins  could  not  be  imputed  to  him,"  nor  his 
righteousness  to  us  :  p.  366.  This  imputation  he  extends  to  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  as  well  as  the  merit  of  his  sufferings.  "  The  opposers  of  this  doctrine," 
he  says,  "  suppose  there  is  an  absurdity  in  supposing  that  God  imputes  Christ's 
obedience  to  us ;  it  is  to  suppose  that  God  is  mistaken,  and  thinks  that  we 
performed  that  obedience  which  Christ  performed.  But  why  cannot  that 
righteousness  be  reckoned  to  our  account,  and  accepted  for  us,  without  any 
such  absurdity?  Why  is  there  any  more  absurdity  in  it  than  in  a  merchant's 
transferring  a  debt  or  credit  from  one  man's  account  to  another,  so  that  it  shall 
be  accepted  as  if  that  other  had  paid  it?  Why  is  there  any  more  absurdity  in 
supposing  that  Christ's  obedience  is  imputed  to  us,  than  that  his  satisfaction  is 
imputed  ?  If  Christ  has  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  our  stead,  then  it 
will  follow  that  his  suffering  that  penalty  is  imputed  to  us  ;  that  is,  accepted 
for  us,  and  in  our  stead,  and  is  reckoned  to  our  account,  as  though  we  had 
suffered  it.  But  why  may  not  his  obeying  the  law  be  as  rationally  reckoned 
to  our  account  as  his  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law?"  p.  395. 

t  Prince's  Christian  History,  No.  92. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  49 

the  edification  of  believers.  His  list  contains  all  the  distinguish- 
ing doctrines  of.  the  gospel ;  as  original  sin,  that  all  men  by  nature 
are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  legally  and  spiritually  dead ;  the 
natural  impotence  and  enmity  of  men  ;  their  natural  blindness  in 
spiritual  things ;  the  covenant  of  works  and  of  grace  ;  God's  sove- 
reignty in  dispensing  grace  to  whomsoever  he  will ;  justification  by 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ ;  the  necessity  of  regenera- 
tion ;  the  necessity  of  the  special  and  supernatural  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit;  the  necessity  of  a  holy  life,  &c.  &c* 

The  Rev.  Mr.  M'Gregore,  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church  at 
Londonderry,  New  Hampshire,  preached  a  sermon  on  the  trial  of 
the  spirits,  which  was  subsequently  published,  with  a  preface  by 
certain  of  the  ministers  of  Boston.  In  that  preface  it  is  said : 
"  As  the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism  has  been  all  along  agree- 
able to  the  known  principles  of  the  New  England  churches,  and 
has  been  generally  received  and  taught  in  them  as  a  system  of 
Christian  doctrine  agreeable  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  wherein  they 
happily  unite ;  it  is  a  great  pleasure  to  us  that  our  Presbyterian 
brethren  who  came  from  Ireland,  are  generally  with  us  in  these 
important  points,  as  also  in  the  particular  doctrines  of  experimental 
piety  arising  from  them,  and  the  wondrous  work  of  God  agreeable 
to  them,  at  this  day  making  its  triumphant  progress  through  the 
land."  The  writers  say  that  they  rejoice  to  add  their  testimony 
to  that  of  the  author  of  the  sermon,  to  the  same  doctrines  of  grace, 
and  to  the  wondrous  works  of  God.f  "  The  doctrines  which  the 
promoters  of  this  work  teach,"  says  the  author,  and  by  which  he 
insists  they  ought  to  be  tried,  to  know  whether  they  are  of  God, 
"  are  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith.  More  particularly  these  men  are 
careful  to  teach  and  inculcate  the  great  doctrine  of  original  sin,  in 
opposition  to  Pelagius,  Arminius,  and  their  respective  followers: 

*  Christian  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  35 i. 

f  Sermon  on  1  John  iv.  1,  preached  in  Boston,  Nov.  3,  1741,  by  Rev.  David 
M'Gregore.  The  preface  above  quoted  is  signed  by  Messrs.  Prince,  Webb, 
and  Cooper. 

VOL.  II. — 4 


50  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

that  this  sin  lias  actually  descended  from  Adam,  the  natural  and 
federal  head,  to  all  his  posterity  proceeding  from  4him  by  ordinary 
generation ;  that  hereby  the  understanding  is  darkened,  the  will 
depraved,  and  the  affections  under  the  influence  of  a  wrong  bias, 
to  that  degree  that  the}r  are  utterly  indisposed  to  any  thing  that  is 
spiritually  good ;  that  man,  as  a  sad  consequence  of  the  fall,  has 
lost  all  power  in  things  spiritual.  They  teach  likewise,  with  due 
care,  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
second  Adam,  Jesus  Christ ;  that  this  righteousness  is  apprehended 
and  applied  by  faith  alone,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law ;  that  the 
faith  which  justifies  the  soul  is  living  and  operative.  They  teach 
that  this  fa;th  is  the  gift  of  God ;  that  a  man  cannot  believe  by 
any  inherent  power  of  his  own.  As  to  regeneration,  they  hold  it 
to  be  absolutely  necessary ;  that  the  tree  must  be  made  good  before 
the  fruit  be  so  ;  that  unless  a  man  undergo  a  supernatural  change 
by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  his  soul,  or  be  born  of 
water  and  of  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."* 
Such  were  the  doctrines  of  the  promoters  of  this  revival,  by  which 
they  wished  to  be  tried  themselves,  and  to  have  their  work  tested. 
Those  who  believe  these  doctrines  will  of  course  be  disposed  to  have 
confidence  in  these  men,  and  in  the  revival  which  attended  their 
preaching.  Whereas  those  who  reject  these  doctrines  may  be  ex- 
pected to  pronounce  the  men  nothing-doers,  passivity -preachers, 
destroyers  of  souls,  and  the  like,  and  their  work  a  mere  delusion  : 
unless,  indeed,  an  exaggerated  deference  for  public  opinion,  or  the 
amiable  prejudice  of  education  should  lead  them  still  to  laud  the  men 
and  the  revival,  while  they  condemn  the  sentiments  which  gave 
both  it  and  them  their  distinctive  character. 

The  second  criterion  of  the  genuineness  of  any  revival  is  the 
nature  of  the  experience  professed  by  its  subjects.  However  va- 
ried as  to  degree  or  circumstances,  the  experience  of  all  true  Chris- 
tians is  substantially  the  same.  There  is  and  must  be  a  conviction 
of  sin,  a  sense  of  ill-desert  and  unholiness  in  the  sight  of  God,  a 
desire  of  deliverance  from  the  dominion  as  well  as  penalty  of  sin ; 

*  See  pp.  13,  14,  of  the  sermon  for  a  full  statement  of  these  doctrines,  which 
we  have  weakened  by  abridging  them. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  51 

an  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ ;  a  cordial 
acquiescence  in  the  plan  of  redemption  ;  a  sincere  return  of  the 
soul  to  God  through  Christ,  depending  on  his  merits  for  acceptance. 
These  acts  of  faith  will  ever  be  attended  with  more  or  less  of  joy 
and  peace,  and  with  a  fixed  desire  and  purpose  to  live  in  obedience 
to  the  will  of  God.  The  distinctness  and  strength  of  these  exer- 
cises, the  rapidity  of  their  succession,  their  modifications  and  com- 
binations, admit  of  endless  diversity,  yet  they  are  all  to  be  found 
in  every  case  of  genuine  conversion.  It  is  here  as  in  the  human 
face ;  all  men  have  the  same  features,  yet  no  two  men  are  exactly 
alike.  This  uniformity  of  religious  experience,  as  to  all  essential 
points,  is  one  of  the  strongest  collateral  proofs  of  the  truth  of  ex- 
perimental religion.  That  which  men  of  every  grade  of  cultiva- 
tion, of  every  period,  and  in  every  portion  of  the  world,  testify 
they  have  known  and  felt,  cannot  be  a  delusion.  When  we  come 
to  ask  what  was  the  experience  of  the  subjects  of  this  revival,  we 
find,  amidst  much  that  is  doubtful  or  objectionable,  the  essential 
characteristics  of  genuine  conversion.  This  is  plain  from  the  ac- 
counts already  given,  which  need  not  be  here  repeated.  In  a  great 
multitude  of  cases,  the  same  feelings  were  professed  which  we  find 
the  saints,  whose  spiritual  life  is  recorded  in  the  Bible,  experienced, 
and  which  the  children  of  God  in  all  ages  have  avowed ;  the  same 
sense  of  sin,  the  same  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God,  the  same 
faith  in  Christ,  the  same  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  the  same  de- 
sire for  communion  with  God,  and  the  same  endeavour  after  new 
obedience. 

Such  however  is  the  ambiguity  of  human  language,  such  the 
deceitfulness  of  the  human  heart,  and  such  the  devices  of  Satan, 
that  no  mere  detail  of  feeling,  and  especially  no  description  which 
one  man  may  give  of  the  feelings  of  others,  can  afford  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  nature  of  those  feelings  in  the  sight  of  God.  Two 
persons  may,  with  equal  sincerity,  profess  sorrow  for  sin,  and  yet 
their  emotions  be  essentially  different.  Both  may  with  truth  de- 
clare that  they  believe  in  Christ,  and  yet  the  states  of  mind  there- 
by expressed  be  very  dissimilar.  Both  may  have  peace,  joy,  and 
love,  yet  the  one  be  a  self-deceiver,  and  the  other  a  true  Christian. 


52  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

We  must,  therefore,  look  further  than  mere  professions  or  detail 
of  experiences,  for  evidence  of  the  real  character  of  this  work. 
We  must  look  to  its  effects.  The  only  satisfactory  proof  of  the 
nature  of  any  religious  excitement,  in  an  individual  or  a  commu- 
nity, is  its  permanent  results.  What  then  were  the  fruits  of  this 
revival  ?  Mr.  William  Tennent  says  that  the  subjects  of  this  work, 
who  had  come  under  his  observation,  were  brought  to  approve  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  to  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  to  endea- 
vour to  do  his  will,  to  love  those  who  bore  the  divine  image ;  that 
the  formal  had  become  spiritual ;  the  proud,  humble  ;  the  wanton 
and  vile,  sober  and  temperate ;  the  worldly,  heavenly-minded  ;  the 
extortioner,  just ;  and  the  self-seeker,  desirous  to  promote  the  glory 
of  God.*     This  account  was  written  in  1744. 

The  convention  of  ministers  that  met  in  Boston  in  1743,  state, 
that  those  who  were  regarded  as  converts  confirmed  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  change  which  they  professed  to  have  experienced,  "  by 
the  external  fruits  of  holiness  in  their  lives,  so  that  they  appeared 
to  those  who  had  the  nearest  access  to  them,  as  so  many  epistles 
of  Jesus  Christ,  written  not  with  ink,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  the  liv- 
ing God."f  President  Edwards,  in  his  Thoughts  on  the  Revival, 
written  in  1743,  says,  there  is  a  strange  alteration  almost  all  over 
New  England  among  the  young.  Many,  both  old  and  young,  have 
become  serious,  mortified  and  humble  in  their  conversation  ;  their 
thoughts  and  affections  are  now  about  the  favour  of  God,  an  inter- 
est in  Christ,  and  spiritual  blessedness.  The  Bible  is  in  much 
greater  esteem  and  use  than  formerly.  The  Lord's  day  is  more 
religiously  observed.  There  has  been  more  acknowledgment  of 
faults  and  restitution  within  two  years,  than  in  thirty  years  before. 
The  leading  truths  of  the  gospel  are  more  generally  and  firmly 
held  ;  and  many  have  exhibited  calmness,  resignation,  and  joy.  in 
the  midst  of  the  severest  trials. £  It  is  true  his  estimate  of  this 
work,  a  few  years  later,  was  far  less  favourable,  but  he  never  ceased 
to  regard  it  as  a  great  revival  of  genuine  religion. 

*  Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  34. 

f  Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  252.  See  similar  testimonies  in  the  Christian  History, 
pp.  252,  280,  et  passim. 

\  Edwards's  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  105. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  58 

Trumbull,  a  later  witness,  says,  "  the  effects  on  great  numbers 
were  abiding  and  most  happy.  They  were  the  most  uniform  exem- 
plary Christians  with  whom  I  was  ever  acquainted.  I  was  born  and 
had  my  education  in  that  part  of  the  town  of  Hebron  in  which  the 
work  was  most  prevalent  and  powerful.  Many,  who  at  that  time 
imagined  that  they  were  born  of  God,  made  a  profession  of  their 
faith  in  Christ,  and  were  admitted  to  full  communion,  and  appeared 
to  walk  with  God."  They  were,  he  adds,  constant  and  serious  in 
their  attendance  on  public  worship,  prayerful,  righteous,  and  charita- 
ble, strict  in  the  government  of  their  families,  and  not  one  of  them, 
as  far  as  he  knew,  was  ever  guilty  of  scandal.  Eight  or  ten  years 
after  the  religious  excitement,  there  was  not  a  drunkard  in  the 
whole  parish.  "  It  was  the  most  glorious  and  extensive  revival  of 
religion  and  reformation  of  manners  which  this  country  has  ever 
known.  It  is  estimated  that,  in  the  term  of  two  or  three  years, 
thirty  or  forty  thousand  souls  were  born  into  the  family  of  heaven 
in  New  England,  besides  great  numbers  in  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
and  the  more  southern  provinces."*  It  is  to  be  feared,  indeed,  that 
Trumbull  was  led  from  the  favourable  specimens  which  fell  under 
his  own  observation,  and  from  his  friendship  for  some  of  the  lead- 
ing promoters  of  the  revival,  to  form  a  more  favourable  opinion  of 
its  general  results  than  the  facts  in  the  case  would  warrant.  His 
testimony,  however,  is  important,  belonging  as  he  did  to  the  next 
generation  of  ministers,  and  familiarly  acquainted  as  he  was  with 
some  of  the  most  zealous  preachers  of  the  preceding  period. 

The  rise  of  the  Methodists  in  England,  the  extensive  revival  of 
religion  in  Scotland,  were  contemporaneous  with  the  progress  of 
the  revival  in  this  country.  This  simultaneous  excitement  in  the 
different  parts  of  the  British  empire,  was  marked  every  where,  in 
a  great  measure,  with  the  same  peculiar  features.  It  would  be  in- 
teresting to  trace  its  history  abroad,  in  connection  with  what  occur- 
red on  our  side  of  the  Atlantic.     This,  however,  the  nature  of  the 

*  History  of  Connecticut,  vol.  ii.  p.  263.  The  same  estimate,  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  converts,  is  given  in  a  Historical  Narrative  and  Declaration  of  the  rise 
and  progress  of  the  strict  Congregational  Churches,  (i.  e.  of  the  separated,)  in 
Connecticut.     Providence,  1781. 


54  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

present  work  forbids.  It  is  enough  for  our  purpose  to  know  that 
the  revival  was  not  confined  to  this  country.  It  was  essentially  the 
same  work  here,  in  Scotland  and  in  England,  modified  by  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  those  several  countries. 

If  the  evidence  was  not  perfectly  satisfactory,  that  this  remark- 
able and  extended  revival  was  indeed  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  it  would  lose  almost  all  its  interest  for  the  Christian  church. 
It  is  precisely  because  it  was  in  the  main  a  work  of  God,  that  it  is 
of  so  much  importance  to  ascertain  what  were  the  human  or  evil 
elements  mixed  with  it,  which  so  greatly  marred  its  beauty  and  cur- 
tailed its  usefulness.  That  there  were  such  evils  cannot  be  a  mat- 
ter of  doubt.  The  single  consideration,  that  immediately  after  this 
excitement  the  state  of  religion  rapidly  declined,  that  errors  of  all 
kinds  became  more  prevalent  than  ever,  and  that  a  lethargy  gra- 
dually settled  on  the  churches,  which  was  not  broken  for  near 
half  a  century,  is  proof  enough  that  there  was  a  dreadful  amount 
of  evil  connected  with  the  revival.  Was  such,  however,  actually 
the  case  ?  Did  religion  thus  rapidly  decline  ?  If  this  question  must 
be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  what  were  the  causes  of  this  decline, 
or  what  were  the  errors  which  rendered  this  revival,  considered  as 
a  whole,  productive  of  such  evils  ?  These  are  questions  of  the 
greatest  interest  to  the  American  churches,  and  ought  to  be  very 
seriously  considered  and  answered. 

That  the  state  of  religion  did  rapidly  decline  after  the  revival, 
we  have  abundant  and  melancholy  evidence.  Even  as  early  as 
1744,  President  Edwards  says,  "  the  present  state  of  things  in  New 
England  is,  on  many  accounts,  very  melancholy.  There  is  a  vast 
alteration  within  two  years."  God,  he  adds,  was  provoked  at  the 
spiritual  pride  and  self-confidence  of  the  people,  and  withdrew  from 
them,  and  "  the  enemy  has  come  in  like  a  flood  in  various  respects, 
until  the  deluge  has  overwhelmed  the  whole  land.  There  had  been 
from  the  beginning  a  great  mixture,  especially  in  some  places,  of 
false  experiences  and  false  religion  with  true ;  but  from  this  time 
the  mixture  became  much  greater,  and  many  were  led  away  into 
sad  delusions."*     In  another  letter,  dated  May  23,  1749,  he  says, 

*  Letter  to  Mr.  McCulloch,  of  Scotland,  dated  March  5,  1744.  Life  of  Ed- 
wards, p.  212. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  55 

"  as  to  the  state  of  religion  in  these  parts  of  the  world,  it  is,  in 
general,  very  dark  and  melancholy."*  In  the  preceding  October, 
when  writing  to  Mr.  Erskine  of  Edinburgh,  he  communicates  to 
him  an  extract  from  a  letter  to  himself,  from  Governor  Belcher  of 
New  Jersey,  who  says,  "  The  accounts  which  I  receive  from  time 
to  time,  give  me  too  much  reason  to  fear  that  Arminianisra,  Arian- 
ism,  and  even  Socinianism,  in  destruction  to  the  doctrines  of  grace, 
are  daily  propagated  in  the  New  England  colleges. "f  In  1750,  he 
writes  to  Mr.  McCulloch  in  the  following  melancholy  strain :  "  It 
is  indeed  now  a  sorrowful  time  on  this  side  of  the  ocean.  Iniquity 
abounds,  and  the  love  of  many  waxes  cold.  Multitudes  of  fair  and 
high  professors,  in  one  place  or  another,  have  sadly  backslidden, 
sinners  are  desperately  hardened ;  experimental  religion  is  more 
than  ever  out  of  credit  with  far  the  greater  part :  and  the  doc- 
trines of  grace  and  those  principles  in  religion  which  do  chiefly 
concern  the  power  of  godliness,  are  far  more  than  ever  discarded. 
Arminianism  and  Pelagianism  have  made  a  strange  progress  within 
a  few  years.  The  Church  of  England  in  New  England,  is,  I  sup- 
pose, treble  what  it  was  seven  years  ago.  Many  professors  are 
gone  off  to  great  lengths  in  enthusiasm  and  extravagance  in  their 
notions  and  practices.  Great  contentions,  separations,  and  con- 
fusions in  our  religious  state  prevail  in  many  parts  of  the  land. "J 
In  1752,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Gillespie,  relating  to  his  difficulties  with 
his  congregation,  he  says,  "  It  is  to  be  considered  that  these  things 
have  happened  when  God  is  greatly  withdrawn,  and  religion  was 
very  low,  not  only  in  Northampton,  but  all  over  New  England."§ 
The  church  in  Stonington,  Connecticut,  was  torn  to  pieces  by 
fanaticism,  and  a  separate  congregation  erected.  The  excellent 
pastor  of  that  place,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Fish,  a  warm  friend  of  the  revival, 
exerted  himself  hi  vain  to  stem  the  torrent ;  "  and  other  ministers," 
he  says,  "  that  came  to  our  help  carried  on  the  same  design  of  cor- 
recting the  false  notions  which  new  converts  had  embraced  about 
religion ;  particularly  the  late  judicious  and  excellent  Mr.  David 

*  Letter  to  Mr.  Robe,  of  Kilsyth.     Life,  p.  279. 

t  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  268.  J  Ibid.  p.  413.  g  Ibid.  p.  467 


56  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

Brainerd,  who,  in  this  desk,  exposed  and  remonstrated  against  the 
same  errors,  and  told  me  that  such  false  religion  as  prevailed 
among  my  people,  had  spread  almost  all  the  land  over."" 

That  false  doctrines  increasingly  prevailed  after  the  revival,  is 
strongly  asserted  in  the  letter  of  Edwards  already  quoted.      Other 

*  Fish's  Nine  Sermons,  p.  137.  In  order  to  show  "what  fond  the  sepa- 
ratists turned  their  backs  upon,  and  what  doctrines  they  could  not  bear," 
Mr.  Fish  gives,  in  a  note,  an  outline  of  a  sermon  which  he  preached  during 
the  revival,  and  which  was  the  immediate  cause  of  many  of  his  people  leaving 
him.  The  text  of  the  sermon  was,  Eph.  v.  1.  "  Be  ye  followers  of  God  as 
dear  children."  The  design  of  the  discourse  was  to  show,  1.  What  it  is  to 
fullow  God.  2.  That  the  distinguishing  character  of  God's  children  lies  in 
their  being  followers  of  him.  To  follow  God  implies,  1.  Our  yielding  up  our- 
selves wholly  to  be  governed  by  his  laws  and  commands.  2.  Imitating  his 
moral  perfections  ;  that  is,  being  conformed  to  them  in  heart  and  life  ;  particu- 
larly in  purity  of  heart,  truth,  faithfulness,  justice,  uprightness,  &c.  The 
second  head  he  passes  over,  and  gives  the  application  of  the  sermon,  viz. : 

1.  Hence,  see  the  only  rule  by  which  we  may  try  and  know  God's  children. 
So  far  as  heart  and  life  appear  to  be  conformed  to  God,  they  show  themselves 
to  be  his  children. 

2.  Hence,  see  a  safe  rule  of  conduct.  Set  the  Lord  always  before  your  eyes, 
as  ho  is  revealed  in  his  word. 

3.  Learn  wherein  true  religion  consists,  viz. :  in  following  God,  imitating 
his  moral  perfections  ;  resembling  him  in  spirit,  temper,  and  carriage,  habi- 
tually, in  a  steady  course  of  life.  It  is  therefore  a  mistake  to  place  religion  in 
ecstasies  and  raptures  of  joy,  loud  expressions  of  distress  for  souls  in  public 
meetings  ;  in  powerful  impressions  to  do  things  of  a  religious  nature  :  in  visions 
or  lively  imaginations  of  a  bleeding  Saviour  ;  an  outward  Christ  with  open  and 
inviting  arms,  a  local  hell  or  heaven,  and  such  like.  ("Which  things,  adds  the 
author,  at  that  day,  were  in  high  repute,  treated  with  the  greatest  reverence, 
called  the  power,  &c.)  God's  children,  indeed,  may  have  these  things,  but  these 
are  no  evidences  that  they  are  his  children,  as  they  are  no  parts  of  true  reli- 
gion, nor  do  they  belong  to  the  character  of  the  followers  of  God. 

This  sermon,  says  Mr.  Fish,  gave  an  amazing  shock  to  the  assembly,  and 
proved  extremely  offensive.  The  house  was  filled  with  outcries  against  the 
preacher,  or  loud  expressions  of  concern  for  him.  He  was  upon  this  declared 
an  opposer  of  the  work  of  God,  making  the  hearts  of  his  children  sad,  and 
strengthening  the  hands  of  the  wicked.  And  now  matters  ripened  fast  for 
a  separation.  The  kind  of  religion  of  which  this  extract  gives  us  a  glimpse, 
had,  at  that  early  period,  according  to  David  Brainerd,  spread  almost  all  the 
land  over. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  57 

proofs  of  the  fact  might  easily  be  adduced.  The  Rev.  John  Gra- 
ham, in  a  sermon  preached  in  1745,  complains  that  many  had  gone 
forth  who  preached  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
denied  the  doctrines  of  personal  election,  of  original  sin,  of  justi- 
fication by  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  imputed  by  an  act 
of  sovereign  grace ;  instantaneous  regeneration  by  the  divine  en- 
ergy of  special  irresistible  grace ;  and  of  the  final  perseverance  of 
the  saints.  "The  Pelagian  and  Arminian  errors,"  he  adds,  "can- 
not but  be  exceedingly  pleasing  to  the  devil ;  and  such  as  preach 
them  most  successfully,  are  the  greatest  instruments  of  supporting 
his  kingdom  in  the  world,  and  his  dominion  in  the  hearts  of  men. 
What  necessity  is  then  laid  upon  ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  see 
what  danger  precious  souls  are  in  by  the  spread  and  prevalence  of 
such  pernicious  errors,  which  are  like  a  fog  or  smoke,  sent  from 
the  bottomless  pit  on  purpose  to  prevent  the  shining  of  the  gospel 
sun  into  the  hearts  of  men,  to  be  very  close  and  strict  in  searching 
into  the  principles  of  such  as  are  candidates  for  the  sacred  minis- 
try."* 

Somewhat  later,  President  Clap  found  it  necessary,  on  account 
of  the  increasing  prevalence  of  error,  to  write  a  formal  defence  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  New  England  churches.  The  leading  features 
of  the  new  divinity,  of  which  he  complained,  were,  1.  That  the 
happiness  of  the  creature  is  the  great  end  of  creation.  2.  That 
self-love  is  the  ultimate  foundation  of  all  moral  obligation.  3. 
That  God  cannot  control  the  acts  of  free  agents.  4.  That  he  can- 
not certainly  foreknow,  much  less  decree  such  acts.  5.  That  all 
sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law ;  that 
Adam  was  not  created  in  a  state  of  holiness,  but  only  had  a  power 
to  act  virtuously ;  and  every  man  is  now  born  into  the  world  in  as 
perfect  a  state  of  rectitude  as  that  in  which  Adam  was  created. 
6.  The  actions  of  moral  agents  are  not  free,  and  consequently  have 
no  moral  character,  unless  such  agents  have  plenary  ability  and 
full  power  to  the  contrary.  Hence  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that 
God  should  implant  grace  or  holiness  in   any  man,  or  keep  him 

*  Sermon  preached  at  the  ordination  of  Nathan  Strong,  Oct.  9,  1745,  by 
John  Graham,  of  Southbury. 


58  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

from  sin.  7.  Christ  did  not  die  to  make  satisfaction  for  sin,  and 
hence  there  is  no  need  to  suppose  him  to  be  essentially  God,  but 
only  a  perfect  and  glorious  creature.  No  great  weight  ought  t' 
be  laid  upon  men's  believing  Christ's  divinity,  or  any  of  those  spe- 
culative points  which  have  been  generally  received  as  the  peculiar 
and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel ;  but  we  ought  to  have 
charity  for  all  men,  let  their  speculative  principles  be  what  they 
may,  provided  they  lead  moral  lives.*  These  doctrines  were  a 
great  advance  on  the  Arminian  or  even  Pelagian  errors  over  which 
President  Edwards  lamented,  and  show  what  might  indeed  be  ex- 
pected, that  the  churches  had  gone  from  bad  to  worse. 

This  is  certainly  a  gloomy  picture  of  the  state  of  religion  so 
soon  after  a  revival,  regarded  as  the  most  extensive  the  country 
had  ever  known.  It  is  drawn  not  by  the  enemies,  but  in  a  great 
measure  by  the  best  and  wisest  friends  of  religion.  The  preceding 
account,  it  is  true,  relates  principally  to  New  England.  In  the 
Presbyterian  Church  the  same  rapid  decline  of  religion  does  not 
appear  to  have  taken  place.  In  1752,  President  Edwards,  in  a 
letter  to  Mr.  McCulloch,  says,  "  As  to  the  state  of  religion  in 
America,  I  have  little  to  write  that  is  comfortable,  but  there  seem 
to  be  better  appearances  in  some  of  the  other  colonies  than  in  New 
England."  f  He  specifies  particularly  New  Jersey  and  Virginia. 
And  we  know  from  other  sources  that,  while  the  cause  of  truth  and 
piety  was  declining  in  the  Eastern  States,  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
especially  that  portion  of  it  in  connection  with  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  was  increasing  and  flourishing.  With  regard  to  orthodoxy, 
at  least,  there  was  little  cause  of  complaint.  The  only  instance  on 
record,  during  this  whole  period,  of  the  avowal  of  Arminian  sen- 
timents by  a  Presbyterian  minister,  was  that  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Harker,  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  ;  and  he  was  sus- 
pended from  the  ministry  as  soon  as  convicted.  J 

*  Brief  History  and  Vindication  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Churches  of  New 
England,  with  a  specimen  of  the  new  scheme  of  religion  beginning  to  prevail. 
By  Thomas  Clap,  President  of  Yale  College.     New  Haven,  1755. 

t  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  518. 

X  That  there  has  never  been  any  open  and  avowed  departure  from  Calvinis- 
tio  doctrines  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  while  repeated  and  extended  defeo 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  59 

This  low  state  of  religion,  and  extensive  departure  from  the 
truth,  in  that  part  of  the  country  where  the  revival  had  been  most 
extensive,  is  certainly  prima  facie  proof  that  there  must  have  been 
something  very  wrong  in  the  revival  itself.     It  may,  however,  be 

tions  have  occurred  in  New  England,  is  a  fact  worthy  of  special  consideration. 
The  causes  of  this  remarkable  difference  in  the  history  of  these  two  portions 
of  the  church,  may  be  sought  by  different  persons  in  different  circumstances. 
Presbyterians  may  be  excused  if  they  regard  their  form  of  government  as  one 
of  the  most  important  of  those  caus&s.  New  England  has  enjoyed  greater 
religious  advantages  than  any  other  portion  of  our  country.  It  was  settled 
by  educated  and  devoted  men.  Its  population  was  homogeneous  and  compact. 
The  people  were  almost  all  of  the  same  religious  persuasion.  The  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  on  the  contrary,  has  laboured  under  great  disadvantages.  Its 
members  were  scattered  here  and  there,  in  the  midst  of  other  denominations. 
Its  congregations  were  widely  separated,  and,  owing  to  the  scattered  resi- 
dences of  the  people,  often  very  feeble ;  and,  moreover,  not  unfrequently  composed 
of  discordant  materials,  Irish,  Scotch,  German,  French,  and  English.  Yet 
doctrinal  purity  has  been  preserved  to  a  far  greater  extent  in  the  latter  deno- 
mination than  in  the  former.  What  is  the  reason  ?  Is  it  not  to  be  sought  in 
the  conservative  influence  of  Presbytei-ianism  ?  The  distinguished  advantages 
possessed  by  New  England,  have  produced  their  legitimate  effects.  It  would 
be  not  less  strange  than  lamentable,  had  the  institutions,  instructions,  and 
example  of  the  pious  founders  of  New  England  been  of  no  benefit  to  their 
descendants.  It  is  to  these  sources  that  portion  of  our  country  is  indebted  for 
its  general  superiority.  The  obvious  decline  in  the  religious  character  of  the 
people,  and  the  extensive  prevalence,  at  different  periods,  of  fanaticism  and 
Antinomianism,  Arminianism,  and  Pelagianism,  is,  as  we  believe,  to  be  mainly 
attributed  to  an  unhappy  and  unscriptural  ecclesiastical  organization.  Had 
New  England,  with  her  compact  and  homogeneous  population,  and  all  her 
other  advantages,  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  a  regular  Presbyterian  government  in 
the  church,  it  would,  in  all  human  probability,  have  been  the  noblest  ecclesi- 
astical community  in  the  world. 

It  is  well  known  that  a  great  majority  of  all  the  distinguished  ministers 
whom  New  England  has  produced,  have  entertained  the  opinion  here  ex- 
pressed, on  the  subject.  President  Edwards,  for  example,  in  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Erskine,  said,  "  I  have  long  been  out  of  conceit  of  our  unsettled,  independent, 
confused  way  of  church  government;  and  the  Presbyterian  way  has  ever 
appeared  to  me  most  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  reason  and  nature 
of  things."  Life,  p.  412.  Where  the  preservation  of  the  purity  of  the  church 
is  committed  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  who,  as  a  general  rule,  are  incompe- 
tent to  judge  in  doctrinal  matters,  and  who,  in  many  cases,  are  little  under 
the  influence  of  true  religion,  we  need  not  wonder  that  corruption  should  from 


60  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

said,  that  the  decay  of  religion  through  the  land  generally,  is  perfectl) 
consistent  with  the  purity  of  the  revival  and  the  flourishing  st:te 
of  those  particular  churches  which  had  experienced  its  influence. 
The  facts  of  the  case,  unfortunately,  do  not  allow  us  the  benefit 
of  this  assumption.  It  is  no  doubt  true,  that  in  some  congregations, 
as  in  that  of  Hebron,  mentioned  by  Trumbull,  religion  was  in  a 
very  desirable  state,  in  the  midst  of  the  general  decline;  but  it  is 
no  less  certain,  that  in  many  instances,  in  the  very  places  where 
the  revival  was  the  most  remarkable,  the  declension  was  the  most 
serious.  Northampton  itself  may  be  taken  as  an  illustration. 
"  That  church  was  pre-eminently  a  city  set  upon  a  hill.  Mr.  Stod- 
dard, during  a  remarkably  successful  ministry,  had  drawn  the  at- 
tention of  American  Christians  for  fifty-seven  years.  He  had  also 
been  advantageously  known  in  the  mother  country.  Mr.  Edwards 
had  been  their  minister  for  twenty-three  years.  In  the  respect 
paid  to  him  as  a  profound  theological  writer,  he  had  no  competitor 
from  the  first  establishment  of  the  colonies,  and  even  then,  could 
scarcely  find  one  in  England  or  Scotland.  He  had  also  as  high  a 
reputation  for  elevated  and  fervent  piety  as  for  superiority  of  ta- 
lents. During  the  preceding  eighty  years,  that  church  had  been 
favoured  with  more  numerous  and  powerful  revivals  than  any 
church  in  Christendom."*  This  account,  though  given  in  the 
characteristically  large  style  of  Edwards's  biographer,  is  no  doubt 
in  the  main  correct.  Here  then,  if  any  where,  we  might  look  for 
the  most  favourable  results  of  the  revival.  During  the  religious 
excitement  in  the  years  1734  and  1735,  within  six  months,  more  than 
th»-ee  hundred  persons,  whom  Edwards  regarded  as  true  converts, 
were  received  into  the  church. f  In  1736,  the  whole  number  of 
communicants  was  six  hundred  and  twenty,  including  almost  the 
whole  adult  population  of  the  town.|  The  revival  of  1740-2,  was 
considered  still  more  pure  and  wonderful.     What  was  the  state  of 

time  to  time  prevail.  As  Christ  has  appointed  presbyters  to  rule  in  the 
church  according  to  his  word,  on  them  devolve  the  duty  and  responsibility  of 
maintaining  the  truth.  This  charge  is  safest  in  the  hands  of  those  to  whom 
Christ  has  assigned  it. 

*  Dwight's  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  446.       t  Edwards's  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  28. 

X  Ibj.l.  p.  27. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  61 

rehgicn  in  this  highly  favoured  place,  soon  after  all  these  revivals? 
In  the  judgment  of  Edwards  himself  it  was  deplorably  low,  both 
as  to  Christian  temper  and  adherence  to  sound  doctrine.  In  1744, 
when  an  attempt  was  made  to  administer  discipline  somewhat  inju- 
diciously, it  is  true,  as  to  the  manner  of  doing  it,  it  was  strenu- 
ously resisted.  The  whole  town  was  thrown  into  a  blaze.  Some 
of  the  accused  "  refused  to  appear ;  others,  who  did  appear,  be- 
haved with  a  great  degree  of  insolence,  and  contempt  for  the  au- 
thority of  the  church,  and  little  or  nothing  could  be  done  further 
in  the  affair."*  From  1744  to  1748,  not  a  single  application  was 
made  for  admission  to  the  church. f  In  1749,  when  it  became 
known  that  Edwards  had  adopted  the  opinion  that  none  ought  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  but  such  as  gave  satisfactory 
evidence  of  conversion,  "  the  town  was  put  into  a  great  ferment ; 
and  before  he  was  heard  in  his  own  defence,  or  it  was  known  by 
many  what  his  principles  were,  the  general  cry  was  to  have  him 
dismissed."!  That  diversity  of  opinion  between  a  pastor  and  his 
people  on  such  a  practical  point,  should  lead  to  a  desire  for  a  sepa- 
ration, might  not  be  very  discreditable  to  either  party.  But 
when  it  is  known  that  on  this  occasion  the  church  treated  such  a 
man  as  Edwards,  who  not  only  was  an  object  of  veneration  to. the 
Christian  public,  but  who  behaved  in  the  most  Christian  manner 
through  the  whole  controversy,  with  the  greatest  injustice  and 
malignity,  it  must  be  regarded  as  proof  positive  of  the  low  state 
of  religion  among  them.  They  refused  to  allow  him  to  preach  on 
the  subject  in  dispute ;  they  pertinaciously  resisted  the  calling  of 
a  fair  council  to  decide  the  matter ;  they  insisted  on  his  dismission 
without  making  any  provision  for  his  expensive  family  ;  and  when 
his  dismission  had  taken  place,  they  shut  their  pulpit  against  him, 
even  when  they  had  no  one  else  to  occupy  it.  On  the  unfounded 
suspicion  that  he  intended  to  form  a  new  church  in  the  town,  they 
presented  a  remonstrance  containing  direct,  grievous,  and  criminal 
charges  against  him,  which  were  really  gross  slanders. §     This  was 

*  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  300.  f  Ibid.  p.  438.  J  Ibid.  p.  300. 

?  Ibid.  p.  421.     See  the  whole  details  of  this  extraordinary  history,  pp.  288- 
404. 


32  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

not  the  offence  of  a  few  individuals.  Almost  the  whole  church  took 
part  against  Edwards.*  Such  treatment  of  such  a  man  certainly 
proves  a  lamentable  state  of  religion,  as  far  as  Christian  temper  is 
concerned.  With  regard  to  orthodoxy  the  case  was  not  much 
better.  Edwards  in  a  letter  to  Erskine,  in  1750,  says,  there 
seemed  to  be  the  utmost  danger  that  the  younger  generation  in 
Northampton  would  be  carried  away  with  Arminianism  as  'with  a 
flood ;  that  it  was  not  likely  that  the  church  would  choose  a  Cal- 
vinist  as  his  successor,  and  that  the  older  people  were  never  so  in- 
different to  things  of  this  nature. f 

The  explanation  which  has  been  proposed  of  these  extraordinary 
facts,  is  altogether  unsatisfactory.  It  is  said  that  the  custom 
which  had  long  prevailed  in  Northampton,  of  admitting  those  to 
the  Lord's  Supper  who  gave  no  sufficient  evidence  of  conversion, 
sufficiently  accounts  for  all  this  ill  conduct  on  the  part  of  the 
church.  But  where  were  the  three  hundred  members  whom  Ed- 
wards regarded  as  "savingly  brought  home  to  Christ,"  J  within  six 
months,  during  the  revival  of  1734-5  ?  Where  were  all  the  fruits  of 
the  still  more  powerful  revival  of  1740-42?  The  vast  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  church  had  been  brought  in  by  Edwards  him- 
self, and  of  their  conversion  he  considered  himself  as  having  sufficient 
evidence.  The  habit  of  free  admission  to  the  Lord's  table,  therefore, 
by  no  means  accounts  for  the  painful  facts  above  referred  to.  After 
all  that  had  been  published  to  the  world  of  the  power  of  religion  in 
Northampton,  the  Christian  public  were  entitled  to  expect  to  see 
the  people  established  in  the  truth,  and  an  example  in  holiness  to 
other  churches.  Instead  of  this,  we  find  them  resisting  the  ad- 
ministration of  discipline  in  less  than  eighteen  months  after  the 
revival ;  alienated  from  their  pastor ;  indifferent  to  the  truth,  and 
soon  driving  from  among  them  the  first  minister  of  his  age,  with 
every  aggravating  circumstance  of  ingratitude  and  injustice.  It 
is  all  in  vain  to  talk  of  the  religion  of  such  a  people.     This  fact 

*  In  one  place  it  is  said,  about  twenty  heads  adhered  to  their  pastor,  (Life,  p. 
164;)  in  another,  that  only  twenty-three,  out  of  two  hundred  and  thirty  nialo 
members  of  the  church,  voted  against  his  dismission,  p.  410. 

t  Ibid.  p.  411.     Compare  his  Farewell  Sermon.       %  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  28. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES  63 

demonstrates  that  there  must  have  been  something  wrong  in  these 
revivals,  even  under  the  eye  and  guidance  of  Edwards,  from  the 
beginning.  There  must  have  been  many  spurious  conversions,  and 
much  false  religion  which  at  the  time  were  regarded  as  genuine. 
This  assumption  is  nothing  more  than  the  facts  demand,  nor  more 
than  Edwards  himself  frequently  acknowledged.  There  is  the 
most  marked  difference  between  those  of  his  writings  which  were 
published  during  the  revival,  and  those  which  appeared  after  the 
excitement  had  subsided.  In  the  account  which  he  wrote  in  1736, 
of  the  revival  of  the  two  preceding  years,  there  is  scarcely  an  inti- 
mation of  any  dissatisfaction  with  its  character.  Yet,  in  1743,  he 
speaks  of  it  as  having  been  very  far  from  pure  ;*  and  in  1751,  he 
lamented  his  not  having  had  boldness  to  testify  against  some  glar- 
ing false  appearances,  and  counterfeits  of  religion,  which  became 
a  dreadful  source  of  spiritual  pride,  and  of  other  things  exceedingly 
contrary  to  true  Christianity. f  In  like  manner,  in  the  contempo- 
raneous account  of  the  revival  of  1740-42,  he  complains  of  no- 
thing but  of  some  disorders  introduced  towards  the  close  of  the 
year  1742,  from  other  congregations ;  whereas,  in  his  letters  writ- 
ten a  few  years  later,  he  acknowledges  that  many  things  were 
wrong  from  the  first.  This  is,  indeed,  very  natural.  While  in  the 
midst  of  the  excitement,  seeing  and  feeling  much  that  he  could  not 
but  regard  as  the  result  of  divine  influence,  he  was  led  to  encour- 
age many  things  Avhich  soon  brought  forth  the  bitter  fruits  of  dis- 
order and  corruption.  His  correspondence  affords  abundant  evi- 
dence how  fully  sensible  he  became  of  the  extent  to  which  this 
revival  was  corrupted  with  false  religion.  When  his  Scottish  friends 
had  informed  him  of  the  religious  excitement  then  prevailing  in 
some  parts  of  Holland,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Erskine,  June  28,  1751, 
expressing  his  anxiety  that  the  people  might  be  led  to  "  distinguish 
between  true  and  false  religion ;  between  those  experiences  which 
are  from  the  saving  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  those 
which  are  from  Satan  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light."  He 
wished  that  they  had  the  experience  of  the  church  of  God  in 
America,  on  this  subject,  as  they  would  need  all  the  warning  that 

*  Life,  p.  168.  t  Ibid.  p.  465. 


64  PRESBYTERIAN     C  II  URCII 

could  be  given  them.  "  The  temptation,"  he  adds,  "  to  religious 
people  in  such  a  state  to  countenance  the  glaring,  shining  counter- 
feits of  religion,  without  distinguishing  them  from  the  reality,"  is 
so  strong  that  they  can  hardly  be  restrained  from  committing  the 
mistake.  In  reference  to  the  wish  of  the  Dutch  ministers  to  have 
attestations  of  the  permanently  good  effects  of  the  revivals  in  Scot- 
land and  America,  he  says,  "  I  think  it  fit  they  should  know  the 
very  truth  in  the  case,  and  that  things  should  be  represented  neither 
better  nor  worse  than  they  are.  If  they  should  be  represented 
worse,  it  would  give  encouragement  to  unreasonable  opposers ;  if 
better,  it  might  prevent  a  most  necessary  caution  among  the  true 
friends  of  the  awakening.  There  are,  undoubtedly,  very  many  in- 
stances in  New  England,  in  the  whole,  of  the  perseverance  of  such 
as  were  thought  to  have  received  the  saving  benefit  of  the  late 
revivals  of  religion,  and  of  their  continuing  to  walk  in  newness  of 
life  as  becometh  saints  ;  instances  which  are  incontestable.  But  I 
believe  the  proportion  here  is  not  so  great  as  in  Scotland.  I  can- 
not say  that  the  greater  portion  of  the  supposed  converts  give  rea- 
son to  suppose,  by  their  conversation,  that  they  are  true  converts. 
The  proportion  may,  perhaps,  be  more  truly  represented  by  the 
proportion  of  the  blossoms  on  a  tree  which  abide  and  come  to  ma- 
ture fruit,  to  the  whole  number  of  blossoms  in  the  spring."*  In 
another  letter,  dated  Nov.  23,  1752,  he  expresses  his  conviction 
that  there  was  a  greater  mixture  of  evil  with  good  in  the  revival 
in  Holland,  than  the  ministers  there  supposed ;  that  the  conse- 
quences of  not  distinguishing  between  true  and  false  religion  would 
prove  worse  than  they  had  any  conception  of.  He  then  refers  to 
the  history  of  the  revival  here,  and  adds  that  it  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  "  the  divines  of  Europe  would  lay  very  much  weight 
on  the  admonitions  which  they  received  from  such  an  obscure  part 
of  the  world.  Other  parts  of  the  church  of  God  must  be  taught 
as  we  have  been,  and  when  they  see  and  feel,  then  they  will  be- 
lieve. Not  that  I  apprehend  there  is  in  any  measure  so  much  en- 
thusiasm and  disorder  mixed  with  the  work  in  Holland,  as  was  in 
many  parts  of  America,  in  the  time  of  the  last  revival  of  religion 
here."f 

*  Life,  p.  459.  t  Ibid.  p.  508. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  65 

These  passages  give  a  melancholy  account  of  the  results  of  the 
great  religious  excitement  now  under  consideration.  In  the  pre- 
ceding estimate,  Edwards  does  not  speak  of  those  who  were  merely 
awakened,  or  who  were  for  a  time  the  subjects  of  serious  impres- 
sions, but  of  those  who  were  regarded  as  converts.  It  is  of  these, 
he  says,  that  only  a  small  portion  proved  to  be  genuine.  If  this 
be  so,  it  certainly  proves  that,  apart  from  the  errors  and  disorders 
universally  reprobated  by  the  judicious  friends  of  the  revival,  there 
were  serious  mistakes  committed  by  those  friends  themselves.  If 
it  was  difficult  then,  it  must  be  much  more  so  now,  to  detect  the 
causes  of  the  spurious  excitement  which  then  so  extensively  pre- 
vailed. Two  of  these  causes,  however,  are  so  obvious  that  they 
can  hardly  fail  to  attract  attention.  These  were  laying  too  much 
stress  on  feelings  excited  through  the  imagination,  and  allowing, 
and  indeed  encouraging  the  free  and  loud  manifestation  of  feeling 
during  public  or  social  worship. 

It  is  one  office  of  the  imagination  to  recall  and  reconstruct  con- 
ceptions of  any  object  which  affects  the  senses.  It  is  by  this  faculty 
that  we  form  mental  images,  or  lively  conceptions  of  the  objects 
of  sense.  It  is  to  this  power  that  graphic  descriptions  of  absent 
or  imaginary  scenes  are  addressed  ;  and  it  is  by  the  agency  of  this 
faculty  that  oratory,  for  the  most  part,  exerts  its  power  over  the 
feelings.  That  a  very  large  portion  of  the  emotions  so  strongly 
felt,  and  so  openly  expressed  during  this  revival,  arose  not  from 
spiritual  apprehensions  of  divine  truth,  but  from  mere  imaginations 
or  mental  images,  is  evident  from  tw.o  sources ;  first,  from  the  de- 
scriptions given  of  the  exercises  themselves ;  and,  secondly,  from 
the  avowal  of  the  propriety  of  this  method  of  exciting  feeling  in 
connection  with  religious  subjects.  Had  we  no  definite  information 
as  to  this  point,  the  general  account  of  the  effects  of  the  preaching 
of  Whitefield  and  others  would  satisfy  us  that,  to  a  very  great 
extent,  the  results  were  to  be  attributed  to  no  supernatural  influ- 
ence, but  to  the  natural  powers  of  oratory.  There  is  no  subject 
so  universally  interesting  as  religion,  and  therefore  there  is  none 
which  can  be  made  the  cause  of  such  general  and  powerful  excite- 
ment ;  yet  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  had  Whitefield  selected  any 
vol.  ii. — 5 


66  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

worthy  object  of  benevolence  or  patriotism,  he  would  have  pro- 
duced a  great  commotion  in  the  public  mind.  When  therefore  he 
came  to  address  men  on  a  subject  of  infinite  importance,  of  tho 
deepest  personal  concern,  we  need  not  be  surprised  at  the  effects 
which  he  produced.  The  man  who  could  thaw  the  icy  propriety 
of  Bolingbroke ;  who  could  extort  gold  from  Franklin,  though 
armed  with  a  determination  to  give  only  copper ;  or  set  Hopkin- 
son,  for  the  time  being,  beside  himself;  might  be  expected  to  con- 
trol at  will  the  passions  of  the  young,  the  ignorant,  and  the  excita- 
ble. It  is  far  from  being  denied  or  questioned  that  his  preaching 
was,  to  an  extraordinary  degree,  attended  by  a  divine  influence. 
That  influence  is  needed  to  account  for  the  repentance,  faith,  and 
holiness,  which  were  in  a  multitude  of  cases  the  result  of  his  minis- 
trations. It  is  not  needed,  however,  to  account  for  the  loud  out- 
cries, faintings,  and  bodily  agitations  which  attended  his  course. 
These  are  sufficiently  explained  by  his  vivid  descriptions  of  hell,  of 
heaven,  of  Christ,  and  a  future  judgment,  addressed  to  congregated 
thousands  of  excited  and  sympathizing  hearers,  accompanied  by 
the  most  stirring  appeals  to  the  passions,  and  all  delivered  with  con- 
summate skill  of  voice  and  manner.  It  was  under  such  preaching, 
the  people,  as  he  tells  us,  soon  began  to  melt,  to  weep,  to  cry  out, 
and  to  faint.  That  a  large  part  of  these  results  was  to  be  attri- 
buted to  natural  causes,  can  hardly  be  doubted ;  yet  who  could  dis- 
criminate between  what  was  the  work  of  the  orator,  and  what  was 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  Who  could  tell  whether  the  sor- 
row, the  joy,  and  the  love  expressed  and  felt,  were  the  result  of 
lively  imaginations,  or  of  spiritual  apprehensions  of  the  truth  ? 
The  two  classes  of  exercises  were  confounded ;  both  passed  for 
genuine,  until  bitter  experience  disclosed  the  mistake.  It  is  evident 
that  Whitefield  had  no  opportunity  of  making  any  such  discrimina- 
tion ;  and  that  for  the  time  at  least,  he  regarded  all  meltings,  all 
sorrowing,  and  all  joy  following  his  fervid  preaching,  as  evidence 
of  the  divine  presence.  It  is  not,  however,  these  general  accounts 
so  much  as  the  more  particular  detail  of  the  exercises  of  the  sub- 
jects of  this  revival,  which  shows  how  much  of  the  feeling  then 
prevalent  was  due  to  the  imagination.     Thus  Edwards  speaks  of 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  67 

those  who  had  a  lively  picture  in  their  minds  of  hell  as  a  dreadful 
furnace,  of  Christ  as  one  of  glorious  majesty,  and  of  a  sweet  and 
gracious  aspect,  or  as  of  one  hanging  on  the  cross,  and  blood 
running  from  his  wounds.*  Great  stress  was  often  laid  upon  these 
views  of  "an  outward  Christ,"  and  upon  the  feeling  resulting  from 
such  conceptions.  Though  Edwards  was  from  the  beginning  fully 
aware  that  there  was  no  true  religion  in  such  exercises  ;f  and  though 
in  his  work  on  the  Affections,  written  in  1746,  he  enters  largely  on 
the  danger  of  delusion  from  this  source,  it  is  very  evident  that  at 
this  period  he  was  not  properly  impressed  with  a  sense  of  guarding 
against  this  evil.  Just  after  stating  how  commonly  such  mental 
pictures  were  cherished  by  the  people,  he  adds,  "  surely  such  things 
will  not  be  wondered  at  by  those  who  have  observed,  how  any 
strong  affections  about  temporal  matters  will  excite  lively  ideas 
and  pictures  of  different  things  in  the  mind."|  In  his  sermon  on 
the  distinguishing  marks  of  a  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  he  goes 
much  further.  He  there  says,  "  Such  is  our  nature,  that  we  can- 
not think  of  things  invisible  without  some  degree  of  imagination. 
I  dare  appeal  to  any  man  of  the  greatest  powers  of  mind,  whether 
he  is  able  to  fix  his  thoughts  on  God,  or  Christ,  or  the  things  of 
another  world  without  imaginary  ideas  attending  his  meditation. "§ 
By  imaginary  ideas,  he  means  mental  images,  or  pictures. |j  In  the 
same  connection,  he  adds,  "the  more  engaged  the  mind  is,  and  the 
more  intense  the  contemplation  and  affection,  still  the  more  lively 
and  strong  will  the  imaginary  idea  ordinarily  be."  Hence,  he 
insists,  "  that  it  is  no  argument  that  a  work  is  not  a  work  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  that  some  who  are  the  subjects  of  it,  have  been  in 

*  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  55. 

f  See  his  account  of  the  revival  in  1734-5,  written  in  1736. 

%  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  55.  \  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  567. 

||  This  is  plain  from  his  own  account  of  them.  In  his  work  on  the  Affec- 
tions, he  says,  "  All  such  things  as  we  perceive  by  our  five  senses,  seeing,  hear- 
ing, smelling,  tasting,  and  feeling,  are  external  things ;  and  where  a  person 
has  an  idea  or  image  of  any  of  these  sorts  of  things,  when  they  are  not  there, 
and  when  he  really  does  not  see,  hear,  smell,  taste,  or  feel  them,  that  is  to 
have  an  imagination  of  them,  and  these  ideas  are  imaginary  ideas."  P.  236 
of  the  Elizabethtown  edition. 


68  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

a  kind  of  ecstaey,  wherein  they  have  heen  carried  beyond  them- 
selves, and  have  had  their  minds  transported  in  a  train  of  strong 
and  pleasing  imaginations,  and  a  kind  of  visions,  as  though  they 
were  rapt  up  even  to  heaven,  and  there  saw  glorious  sights."* 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  is  a  legitimate  use  of  the  imagi- 
nation in  religion.  The  Bible  often  addresses  itself  to  this  faculty. 
The  descriptions  which  it  gives  of  the  future  glory  of  the  church, 
and  of  heaven  itself,  are  little  else  than  a  series  of  images ;  not 
tha.t  we  should  conceive  of  the  millennium  as  of  a  time  when  the 
lion  and  lamb  shall  feed  together,  or  of  heaven  as  a  golden  city, 
but  that  we  may  have  a  more  lively  impression  of  the  absence  of 
all  destructive  passions,  when  Christ  shall  reign  on  earth,  and  that 
we  may  learn  to  think  of  heaven  as  a  state  of  surpassing  glory. 
In  all  such  cases,  it  is  the  thought  which  the  figure  is  meant  to 
convey,  and  not  the  figure  itself,  that  the  mind  rests  upon  in  all 
truly  religious  exercises.  When,  on  the  other  hand,  the  mind  fixes  on 
the  image,  and  not  upon  the  thought,  and  inflames  itself  with  these 
imaginations,  the  result  is  mere  curious  excitement.  So  far  then 
as  the  imagination  is  used  to  render  the  thoughts  which  the  under- 
standing forms  of  spiritual  things  distinct  and  vivid,  so  far  may  it 
minister  to  our  religious  improvement.  But  when  it  is  made  a 
mere  chamber  of  imagery,  in  which  the  soul  alarms  or  delights 
itself  with  spectres,  it  becomes  the  source  of  all  manner  of  de- 
lusions. 

It  may  still  further  be  admitted,  that  images  borrowed  from  sen- 
sible objects  often  mix  with  and  disturb  the  truly  spiritual  contem- 
plations' of  the  Christian,  but  this  is  very  different  from  teaching 
that  we  cannot  think  of  God,  or  Christ,  or  spiritual  subjects,  with- 
out some  pictorial  representations  of  them.  If  such  is  the  consti- 
tution of  our  nature  that  we  must  have  such  imaginary  ideas  of 
God  himself,  then  we  ought  to  have  and  to  cherish  them.  But  by 
the  definition,  these  ideas  are  nothing  but  the  reproduction  and 
varied  combinations  of  past  impressions  on  the  senses.  To  say, 
therefore,  that  we  must  have  such  ideas  of  God,  is  to  say  that  we 
must  conceive  of  him  and  worship  him  under  some  corporeal  form, 

*  Works,  vol.  iii.  p  568. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  69 

■which  is  nothing  but  refined  idolatry,  and  is  as  much  forbidden  as 
the  worship  of  stocks  or  stones.  It  certainly  needs  no  argument 
to  show  that  we  cannot  form  any  pictorial  representation  of  a  spirit, 
and  least  of  all,  of  God ;  or  that  such  representations  of  Christ  or 
heaven  cannot  be  the  source  of  any  truly  religious  affections.  What 
have  such  mental  images  to  do  with  the  apprehension  of  the  evil  of 
sin,  of  the  beauty  of  holiness,  of  the  mercy  of  God,  of  the  merits 
of  Christ,  or  with  any  of  those  truths  on  which  the  mind  acts  when 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ? 

From  the  accounts  of  this  revival  already  quoted,  from  the  detail 
given  of  the  experience  of  many  of  its  subjects,  and  especially  from 
the  arguments  and  apologies  just  referred  to,  it  is  evident  that  one 
great  source  of  the  false  religion,  which,  it  is  admitted,  then  pre- 
vailed, was  the  countenance  given  to  these  impressions  on  the  ima- 
gination and  to  the  feelings  thus  excited.  It  was  in  vain  to  tell  the 
people  they  must  distinguish  between  what  was  imaginary  and  what 
was  spiritual ;  that  there  was  no  religion  in  these  lively  mental 
images,  when  they  were  at  the  same  time  told  that  it  was  necessary 
they  should  have  them,  and  that  the  more  intense  the  religious 
affection,  the  more  vivid  would  these  pictures  be.  Under  such  in- 
struction they  would  strive  to  form  such  imaginations ;  they  would 
doat  on  them,  inflame  themselves  with  them,  and  consider  the  vivid- 
ness of  the  image,  and  the  violence  of  the  consequent  emotion,  as 
the  measure  of  their  religious  attainment.  How  deeply  sensible 
Edwards  became  of  the  evil  which  actually  arose  from  this  source, 
may  be  learned  from  his  work  on  the  Affections.  When  an  "  affec- 
tion arises  from  the  imagination,  and  is  built  upon  it,  as  its  founda- 
tion, instead  of  a  spiritual  illumination  or  discovery,  then  is  the 
affection,  however  elevated,  worthless  and  vain."*  And  in  another 
place  he  says,  "  When  the  Spirit  of  God  is  poured  out,  to  begin  a 
glorious  work,  then  the  old  Serpent,  as  fast  as  possible,  and  by  all 
means,  introduces  this  bastard  religion,  and  mingles  it  with  the 
true  ;  which  has  from  time  to  time,  brought  all  things  into  confusion. 
The  pernicious  consequence  of  it  is  not  easily  imagined  or  conceived 
of,  until  we  see  and  are  amazed  with  the  awful  effects  of  it,  and  the 

*  Religious  Affections,  p.  320. 


70  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

dismal  desolation  it  has  made.  If  the  revival  of  true  religion 
be  very  great  in  its  beginning,  yet  if  this  bastard  comes  in,  there 
is  danger  of  its  doing  as  Gideon's  bastard,  Abimelech,  did,  who 
never  left  until  he  had  slain  all  his  threescore  and  ten  true-born 
sons,  excepting  one,  that  was  forced  to  flee.  The  imagination  or 
phantasy  seems  to  be  that  wherein  are  formed  all  those  delusions 
of  Satan,  which  those  are  carried  away  with,  who  are  under  the  influ- 
ence of  false  religion,  and  counterfeit  graces  and  affections.  Here 
is  the  devil's  grand  lurking-place,  the  very  nest  of  foul  and  delu- 
sive spirits."* 

If  Edwards,  who  was  facile  princeps  among  the  friends  of  this 
revival,  could,  during  its  early  stages,  fall  into  the  error  of  coun- 
tenancing the  delusions  which  he  afterwards  so  severely  condemned, 
what  could  be  expected  of  Whitefield  and  others,  who  at  this  time, 
(dates  must  not  be  neglected,  a  few  years  made  a  great  difference 
both  in  persons  and  things,)  passed  rapidly  from  place  to  place, 
neither  making  nor  being  able  to  make,  the  least  distinction  be- 
tween the  effects  of  an  excited  imagination,  and  the  exercises  of 
genuine  religion?  That  they  would  test  the  experience  of  their 
converts  by  its  fruits,  is  not  denied ;  but  that  they  considered  all 
the  commotions  which  attended  their  ministrations,  as  proofs  of 
the  Spirit's  presence,  is  evident  from  their  indiscriminate  rejoicing 
over  all  such  manifestations  of  feeling.  These  violent  agitations 
produced  through  the  medium  of  the  imagination,  though  suffi- 
ciently prevalent,  during  the  revival  in  this  country,  were  perhaps 
still  more  frequent  in  England,  under  the  ministrations  of  Wesley, 
and,  combined  with  certain  peculiarities  of  his  system,  have  given 
to  the  religion  of  the  Methodists  its  peculiar,  and,  so  far  as  it  is 
peculiar,  its  undesirable  characteristic. 

Another  serious  evil  was  the  encouragement  given  to  loud  out- 
cries, faintings,  and  bodily  agitations  during  the  time  of  public 
worship.  It  is  remarkable  that  these  effects  of  the  excitement 
prevailed  generally,  not  only  in  this  country,  but  also  in  Scotland 
and  England.  The  fanatical  portion  of  the  friends  of  the  revival 
not  only  encouraged  these  exhibitions,  but  regarded  them  as  proofs 

*  Religious  Affections,  p.  310. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  71 

of  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God.*  The  more  ju- 
dicious never  went  to  this  extreme,  though  most  of  them  regarded 
them  with  favour.  This  was  the  case  with  Whitefield,  Edwards, 
and  Blair. 

The  manner  in  which  Whitefield  describes  the  scenes  at  Notting- 
ham and  Fagg's  Manor,  and  others  of  a  similar  character,  shows 
that  he  did  not  disapprove  of  these  agitations.  He  says  he  never 
saw  a  more  glorious  sight,  than  when  the  people  were  fainting  all 
round  him,  and  crying  out  in  such  a  manner  as  to  drown  his  own 
voice.  Edwards  took  them  decidedly  under  his  protection.  He 
not  only  mentions,  without  the  slightest  indication  of  disapproba- 
tion, that  his  church  was  often  filled  with  outcries,  faintings,  and 
convulsions,  but  takes  great  pains  to  vindicate  the  revival  from  all 
objection  on  that  account.  Though  such  effects  were  not,  in  his 
view,  any  decisive  evidence  of  the  kind  of  influence  by  which  they 
were  produced,  he  contended  that  it  was  easy  to  account  for  their 
being  produced  by  a  "  right  influence  and  a  proper  sense  of 
things."  f  He  says,  ministers  are  not  to  be  blamed  for  speaking 
of  these  things  "  as  probable  tokens  of  God's  presence,  and  argu- 
ments of  the  success  of  preaching,  because  I  think  they  are  so 
indeed.  I  confess  that  when  I  see  a  great  outcry  in  a  congrega- 
tion, I  rejoice  in  it  much  more  than  merely  in  an  appearance  of 
solemn  attention,  and  a  show  of  affection  by  weeping.  To  rejoice 
that  the  work  of  God  is  carried  on  calmly  and  without  much  ado, 
is  in  effect  to  rejoice  that  it  is  carried  on  with  less  power,  or  that 
there  is  not  so  much  of  the  influence  of  God's  Spirit."  |  In  the 
same  connection  he  says,  that  when  these  outcries,  faintings,  and 
other  bodily  effects  attended  the  preaching  of  the  truth,  he  did 
not  "  scruple  to  speak  of  them,  to  rejoice  in  them,  and  bless  God 
for  them,"  as  probable  tokens  of  his  presence. 

The  Boston  ministers,  on  the  other  hand,  appear  to  have  disap- 
proved of  these  things  entirely,  as  they  mention  their  satisfaction 
that  there  had  been  little  or  nothing  of  such  "  blemishes  of  the 
work"  among  their  churches. §     The  same  view  was  taken  of  them 

*  Fish's  Sermons.     Trumbull's  History,  vol.   ii.  p.   161.     Chauncey's  Sea- 
sonable Thoughts,  p.  78,  93.  f  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  563. 
t  Ibid.  vol.  iv.  p.  169.                            \  Christian  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  386. 


V2  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

by  President  Dickinson,  William  Tennent,  of  Freehold,  and  many 
others. 

That  the  fanatics,  who  regarded  these  bodily  agitations  and  out- 
cries as  evidences  of  conversion,  committed  a  great  and  dangerous 
mistake,  need  not  be  argued ;  and  that  Edwards  and  others,  who 
rejoiced  over  and  encouraged  them,  as  probable  tokens  of  the 
favour  of  God,  fell  into  an  error  scarcely  less  injurious  to  religion, 
will,  at  the  present  day,  hardly  be  questioned.  That  such  effects 
frequently  attend  religious  excitements  is  no  proof  that  they  pro- 
ceed from  a  good  source.  They  may  owe  their  origin  to  the  cor- 
rupt, or  at  least  merely  natural  feelings,  which  always  mingle,  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  with  strong  religious  exercises.  It  is  a 
matter  of  great  practical  importance  to  learn  what  is  the  true  cause 
of  these  effects ;  to  ascertain  whether  they  proceed  from  those 
feelings  which  are  produced  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  from  those 
which  arise  from  other  sources.  If  the  former,  we  ought  to  rejoice 
over  them ;  if  the  latter,  they  ought  to  be  repressed  and  discoun- 
tenanced. 

That  such  bodily  agitations  owe  their  origin  not  to  any  divine 
influence,  but  to  natural  causes,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
these  latter  are  adequate  to  their  production.  They  are  not  con- 
fined to  those  persons  whose  subsequent  conduct  proves  them  to  be 
the  subjects  of  the  grace  of  God ;  but,  to  say  the  least,  are  quite 
as  frequently  experienced  by  those  who  know  nothing  of  true  re- 
ligion. Instead,  therefore,  of  being  referred  to  those  feelings 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  people  of  God,  they  may  safely  be  re- 
ferred to  those  which  are  common  to  them  and  to  unrenewed  men. 
Besides,  such  effects  are  not  peculiar  to  what  we  call  revivals  of 
religion ;  they  have  prevailed,  in  seasons  of  general  excitement,  in 
all  ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  among  pagans,  papists,  and 
every  sect  of  fanatics  which  has  ever  disgraced  the  Christian 
church.  We  are,  therefore,  not  called  upon  to  regard  such  things 
Avith  much  favour,  or  to  look  upon  them  as  probable  tokens  of  the 
presence  of  God.  That  the  bodily  agitations  attendant  on  revivals 
of  religion  are  of  the  same  nature,  and  attributable  to  the  same 
cause,  as  the  convulsions  of  enthusiasts,  is  in  the  highest  degree 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  73 

probable,  because  they  arise  under  the  same  circumstances,  are 
propagated  by  the  same  means,  and  cured  by  the  same  treatment. 
They  arise  in  seasons  of  great,  and  especially  of  general  excite- 
ment ;  they,  in  a  great  majority  of  cases,  affect  the  ignorant  rather 
than  the  enlightened,  those  in  whom  the  imagination  predominates 
over  the  reason,  and  especially  those  who  are  of  a  nervous  temper- 
ament, rather  than  those  of  an  opposite  character.  These  affec- 
tions all  propagate  themselves  by  a  kind  of  infection.  This  cir- 
cumstance is  characteristic  of  this  whole  class  of  nervous  diseases. 
Physicians  enumerate  among  the  causes  of  epilepsy  "  seeing  a  per- 
son in  convulsions."  This  fact  was  so  well  known,  that  the  Ro- 
mans made  a  law,  that  if  any  one  should  be  seized  with  epilepsy 
during  the  meeting  of  the  comitia,  the  assembly  should  be  immedi- 
ately dissolved.  This  disease  occurred  so  frequently  in  those  ex- 
citing meetings,  and  was  propagated  so  rapidly,  that  it  was  called 
the  morbus  comitialis.  Among  the  enthusiasts  who  frequented  the 
tomb  of  the  Abbe'  Paris,  in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  con- 
vulsions were  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  never  failed  to  prove 
infectious.  During  a  religious  celebration  in  the  church  of  Saint 
Roch,  at  Paris,  a  young  lady  was  seized  with  convulsions,  and  within 
half  an  hour  between  fifty  and  sixty  were  similarly  affected.*  A 
multitude  of  facts  of  the  same  kind  might  be  adduced.  Some- 
times such  affections  become  epidemic,  spreading  over  whole  pro- 
vinces. In  the  fifteenth  century,  a  violent  nervous  disease,  attended 
with  convulsions,  and  other  analogous  symptoms,  extended  over  a 
great  part  of  Germany,  especially  affecting  the  inmates  of  the  con- 
vents. In  the  next  century  something  of  the  same  kind  prevailed 
extensively  in  the  south  of  France.  These  affections  were  then 
regarded  as  the  result  of  demoniacal  possessions,  and  in  some  in- 
stances, multitudes  of  poor  creatures  were  put  to  death  as  demoni- 
acs.f 

*  Dictionaire  des  Sciences  Medicales,  Article  Convulsionnaire.  In  this  same 
article  it  is  stated,  that  a  young  woman  affected  with  a  spasmodic  and  con- 
tinued hiccup,  producing  a  noise  very  similar  to  the  barking  of  a  dog,  was 
placed  in  a  hospital  in  the  same  room  with  four  other  female  patients,  and  in 
a  few  days  they  were  all  seized  with  the  same  nervous  disease. 

f  Marshal  Villars  says  in  his  Memoires.  "  Qu'il  a  vu  dans  les  Cevennes  une 
ville  entiere  dont  toutes  les  femmes  et  les  filles,  sans  exception,  paraissaient 


74  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

The  bodily  agitations  attending  the  revival,  were  in  like  mannei 
propagated  by  infection.  On  their  first  appearance  in  Northamp- 
ton, a  few  persons  were  seized  at  an  evening  meeting,  and  while 
others  looked  on  they  soon  became  similarly  affected ;  even  those 
who  appear  to  have  come  merely  out  of  curiosity  did  not  escape. 
The  same  thing  was  observable  at  Nottingham,  Fagg's  Manor,  and 
other  places,  under  the  preaching  of  Whitefield.  It  was  no  less 
obvious  in  Scotland.  It  was  exceedingly  rare  for  any  one  to  be 
thus  affected  in  private  ;  but  in  the  public  meetings,  when  one  per- 
son was  seized,  others  soon  caught  the  infection.  In  England, 
where  these  affections  were  regarded  at  least  at  first,  by  Wesley, 
as  coming  from  God,  and  proofs  of  his  favour,  they  were  very  vio- 
lent, and  spread  with  great  rapidity,  seizing,  at  times,  upon  op- 
posers  as  well  as  friends.  Thus  on  one  occasion,  it  is  stated,  that 
a  Quaker  who  was  present  at  one  meeting,  and  inveighed  against 
what  he  called  the  dissimulation  of  these  creatures,  caught  the  con- 
tagious emotion  himself,  and  even  while  he  was  biting  his  lips  and 
knitting  his  brows,  dropt  down  as  if  lie  had  been  struck  by  light- 
ning. "The  agony  he  was  in,"  says  Wesley,  "was  even  terrible 
to  behold ;  we  besought  God  not  to  lay  folly  to  his  charge,  and  he 
soon  lifted  up  his  head  and  cried  aloud,  '  Now  I  know  thou  art  a 
prophet  of  the  Lord.  "*  On  another  occasion,  under  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Berridge,  a  man  who  had  been  mocking  and 
mimicking  others  in  their  convulsions,  was  himself  seized.  "  He 
was,"  says  the  narrator,  "the  most  horrible  human  figure  I  ever 
saw.  His  large  wig  and  hair  were  coal-black,  his  face  distorted 
beyond  all  description.  He  roared  incessantly,  throwing  and 
clapping  his  hands  together  with  his  whole  force.  Some  of  his 
brother  scoffers  were  calling  for  horsewhips,  till  they  saw  him  ex- 
tended on  his  back  at  full  length;  they  then  said  he  was  dead; 
and  indeed  the  only  sign  of  life  was  the  working  of  his  breast,  and 
the  distortions  of  his  face,  while  the  veins  of  his  neck  were  swelled 
as  if  ready  to  burst.    His  agonies  lasted  some  hours ;  then  his  body 

possedees  du  diable ;  elles  trernblaient  et  prophetisaient  publiquement  dans  lea 
rues,"  &c. 

*  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i.  p.  221. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  7S 

and  soul  were  eased."*  "  At  another  meeting,"  he  says,  "  a  stran- 
ger who  stood  facing  me,  fell  backward  to  the  Avail,  then  forward 
on  his  knees,  wringing  his  hands  and  roaring  like  a  bull.  His  face 
at  first  turned  quite  red,  then  almost  black.  He  rose  and  ran 
against  the  wall,  till  Mr.  Keeling  and  another  held  him.  He 
screamed  out,  '  Oh  !  what  shall  I  do  !  what  shall  I  do  !  oh,  for  one 
drop  of  the  blood  of  Christ !'  As  he  spoke,  God  set  his  soul  at 
liberty ;  he  knew  his  sins  were  blotted  out ;  and  the  rapture  he 
was  in  seemed  too  great  for  human  nature  to  bear."  "  One  woman 
tore  up  the  ground  with  her  hands,  filling  them  with  dust  and  with 
the  hard  trodden  grass,  on  which  I  saw  her  lie  as  one  dead.  Some 
continued  long,  as  if  they  were  dead,  but  with  a  calm  sweetness  in 
their  looks.  I  saw  one  who  lay  two  or  three  hours  in  the  open  air, 
and  being  then  carried  into  the  house,  continued  insensible  another 
hour,  as  if  actually  dead.  The  first  sign  of  life  she  showed,  was  a 
rapture  of  praise  intermixed  with  a  small  joyous  laughter,  "f  These 
accounts,  however,  must  be  read  in  detail,  in  order  to  have  any 
adequate  conception  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  dreadful 
nervous  affections.  Wesley  at  one  time  regarded  them  as  direct 
intimations  of  the  approbation  of  God.  Preaching  at  Newgate,  he 
says,  he  was  led  insensibly,  and  without  any  previous  design,  to 
declare  strongly  and  explicitly,  that  God  willed  all  men  to  be  saved, 
and  to  pray  that,  if  this  was  not  the  truth  of  God,  he  would  not 
suffer  the  blind  to  go  out  of  the  way ;  but  if  it  was,  he  would  bear 
witness  to  his  word.  "  Immediately  one  and  another  sunk  to  the 
earth  ;  they  dropt  on  every  side  as  thunderstruck."  "  In  the  even- 
ing I  was  again  pressed  in  spirit  to  declare  that  Christ  gave  him- 
self a  ransom  for  all.  And  almost  before  we  called  upon  him  to 
set  to  his  seal,  he  answered.  One  was  so  wounded  by  the  sword  of 
the  Spirit,  that  you  would  have  imagined  she  could  not  live  a 
moment.  But  immediately  his  abundant  kindness  was  shown,  and 
she  loudly  sang  of  his  righteousness.  "| 

*  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii.  p.  238.  f  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  237. 

X  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i.  p.  219.  —  How  Wesley  viewed  this  sub- 
ject at  a  somewhat  later  period,  may  be  learned  from  the  following  extract: 
*'  The  danger  was,"  says  he,   "  to  regard   extraordinary  circumstances   to? 


71)  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

The  various  bodily  exercises  which  attended  the  Western  revivals 
in  our  own  country,  in  the  early  part  of  the  present  century,  were 
of  the  same  nature,  and  obeyed  precisely  the  same  laws.  They 
began  with  what  was  called  the  falling  exercise ;  that  is,  the  person 

much  ;  such  as  outcries,  convulsions,  visions,  trances,  as  if  they  were  essen- 
tial to  the  inward  work,  so  that  it  could  not  go  on  without  them.  Perhaps 
the  danger  is,  to  regard  them  too  little ;  to  condemn  them  altogether ;  to 
imagine  they  had  nothing  of  God  in  them,  and  were  a  hinderance  to  his 
work ;  whereas  the  truth  is,  1.  God  suddenly  and  strongly  convinced  many 
that  they  were  lost  sinners ;  the  natural  consequences  whereof  were  sudden 
outcries,  and  strong  bodily  convulsions.  2.  To  strengthen  and  encourage 
them  that  believed,  and  to  make  his  work  more  apparent,  he  favoured  several 
of  them  with  divine  dreams ;  others  with  trances  and  visions.  3.  In  some  of 
these  instances,  after  a  time,  nature  mixed  with  grace.  4.  Satan  likewise 
mimicked  this  work  of  God,  in  order  to  discredit  the  whole  work ;  and  yet  it 
is  not  wise  to  give  up  this  part  any  more  than  to  give  up  the  whole.  At  first 
it  was,  doubtless,  wholly  from  God ;  it  is  partly  so  at  this  day ;  and  he  will 
enable  us  to  discern  how  far,  in  every  case,  the  work  is  pure,  and  when  it 
mixes  and  degenerates.  Let  us  even  suppose  that,  in  some  few  cases,  there 
was  a  mixture  of  dissimulation ;  that  persons  pretended  to  see  and  feel  what 
they  did  not,  and  imitated  the  cries  and  convulsive  motions  of  those  who  were 
really  overpowered  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  yet  even  this  should  not  make  us 
either  undervalue  or  deny  the  real  work  of  the  Spirit.  The  shadow  is  no  dis- 
paragement of  the  substance,  nor  the  counterfeit  of  the  real  diamond."  Quoted 
by  Southey,  vol.  ii.  p.  242.  Wesley  seems  to  have  felt  himself  obliged  to  regard 
these  agitations  as  springing  from  dissimulation,  from  Satan's  influence,  or 
from  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  far  more  natural  solution,  that  they  were  a 
nervous  disease,  common  in  all  ages,  during  seasons  of  excitement,  he  over- 
looks. 

The  Rev.  Richard  Watson,  in  his  Life  of  Wesley,  says  very  little  on  this 
subject.  He  evidently  took  much  the  same  view  of  the  matter  as  that  pre- 
sented in  the  above  extract.  "  Of  the  extraordinary  circumstances,"  says  he, 
"which  have  usually  accompanied  such  visitations,  it  may  be  said,  that  if 
some  should  be  resolved  into  purely  natural  causes,  some  into  real  enthusiasm, 
and  (under  favour  of  our  philosophers)  others  in  satanic  imitation,  a  sufficient 
number  will  remain,  which  can  only  be  explained  by  considering  them  as 
results  of  a  strong  impression  made  upon  the  consciences  and  afl'ections  of 
men,  by  an  influence  ascertained  to  be  divine  by  its  unquestionable  effects  upon 
the  heart  and  life.  Nor  is  it  either  irrational  or  unscriptural  to  suppose,  that 
times  of  great  national  darkness  and  depravity,  the  case  certainly  of  this  coun- 
try at  the  outset  of  Wesley  and  his  colleagues  in  their  glorious  career,  should 
require  a  strong  remedy  ;  and  that  the  attention  of  a  sleeping  people  should 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  77 

affected  would  fall  on  the  ground  helpless  as  an  infant.  This  was 
soon  succeeded,  in  many  places,  by  a  species  of  convulsions  called 
the  jerks.  Sometimes  it  would  affect  the  whole  body,  jerking  it 
violently  from  place  to  place,  regardless  of  all  obstacles ;  at  others, 
a  single  limb  would  be  thus  agitated.  When  the  neck  was  attacked, 
the  head  would  be  thrown  backwards  and  forwards  with  the  most 
fearful  rapidity.  There  were  various  other  forms  in  which  this  dis- 
ease manifested  itself,  such  as  whirling,  rolling,  running,  and  jump- 
ing. These  exercises  were  evidently  involuntary.  They  were  highly 
infectious,  and  spread  rapidly  from  place  to  place ;  often  seizing 
on  mere  spectators,  and  even  upon  those  who  abhorred  and  dreaded 
them.* 

Another  characteristic  of  these  affections,  whether  occurring 
among  pagans,  papists,  or  protestants,  and  which  goes  to  prove 
their  identity,  is,  that  they  all  yield  to  the  same  treatment.  As 
they  arise  from  impressions  on  the  nervous  system  through  the 
imagination,  the  remedy  is  addressed  to  the  imagination.  It  con- 
sists'in  removing  the  exciting  causes,  that  is,  withdrawing  the 
patient  from  the  scenes  and  contemplations  which  produced  the  dis- 
ease ;  or  in  making  a  strong  counter-impression,  either  through 
fear,  shame,  or  sense  of  duty.  The  possessions,  as  they  were 
called,  in  the  south  of  France,  were  put  a  stop  to  by  the  wisdom 
and  firmness  of  certain  bishops,  who  insisted   on   the   separation 

be  roused  by  circumstances  which  could  not  fail  to  be  noticed  by  the  most  un- 
thinking."— Life  of  Wesley,  by  Richard  Watson,  p.  28. 

*  Biblical  Repertory,  1834,  p.  351.  —  An  intelligent  physician,  who  had 
many  opportunities  of  personal  observation,  gives  the  following  account  of 
these  singular  exercises  :  "  Different  persons  are  variously  affected.  Some  rise 
to  their  feet  and  spin  round  like  a  top ;  while  others  dance  till  they  fall  down 
exhausted.  Some  throw  back  their  heads  with  convulsive  laughter,  while 
others,  drowned  in  tears,  break  forth  in  sighs  and  lamentations.  Some  fall 
from  their  seats  in  a  state  of  insensibility,  and  lie  for  hours  without  conscious- 
ness ;  while  others  are  affected  with  violent  convulsions  resembling  epilepsy. 
'During  the  convulsive  paroxysm,  recollection  and  sensation  are  but  little  im- 
paired ;  a  slight  stupor  generally  supervenes.  The  animal  functions  are  not 
much  interrupted ;  the  pulse  is  natural ;  the  temperature  is  that  of  health 
throughout  the  paroxysm.  After  it  has  subsided,  there  is  a  soreness  of  the 
muscles,  and  a  slight  pain  in  the  head,  which  soon  pass  away." 


78  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  seclusion  of  all  the  affected.  On  another  occasion,  a  strange 
nervous  agitation,  which  had  for  some  time,  to  the  great  scandal  of 
religion,  seized  periodically  on  all  the  members  of  a  convent,  was 
arrested  by  the  magistrates  bringing  up  a  company  of  soldiers,  and 
threatening  with  severe  punishment  the  first  who  should  manifest 
the  least  symptom  of  the  affection.*  The  same  method  has  often 
been  successfully  resorted  to.f  In  like  manner  the  convulsions 
attending  revivals  have  been  prevented  or  arrested,  by  producing 
the  conviction  that  they  were  wrong  or  disgraceful.  They  hardly 
ever  appeared,  or  at  least  continued,  where  they  were  not  approved 
and  encouraged.  In  Northampton,  where  Edwards  rejoiced  over 
them,  they  were  abundant ;  in  Boston,  where  they  were  regarded 
as  "blemishes,"  they  had  nothing  of  them.  In  Sutton,  Massa- 
chusetts, they  were  "  cautiously  guarded  against,"  and  consequently 
never  appeared,  except  among  strangers  from  other  congregations. J 
Only  two  or  three  cases  occurred  in  Elizabethtown,  under  Presi- 
dent Dickinson,  who  considered  them  as  "irregular  heats,"  and 
those  few  were  speedily  regulated.  There  was  nothing  of  the  kind 
at  Freehold,  where  William  Tennent  set  his  face  against  all  such 
manifestations  of  enthusiasm.  On  the  other  hand,  they  followed 
Davenport  and  other  fanatical  preachers,  almost  wherever  they 
went.  In  Scotland,  they  were  less  encouraged  than  they  were 
here,  and  consequently  prevailed  less.  In  England,  where  Wesley 
regarded  them  as  certainly  from  God,  they  were  fearful  both  as  to 
frequency  and  violence.  The  same  thing  was  observed  with  regard 
to  the  agitations  attending  the  Western  revivals.  The  physician 
already  quoted,  says  :   "  Restraint  often  prevents  a  paroxysm.    For 

*  Dictioimaire  des  Sciences  Medicales.     Article  Convulsionnaire. 

f  It  was  by  an  appeal  to  the  principle  of  shame,  that  the  frequent  suicides 
among  the  young  women  of  Miletus  were  prevented.  Under  the  influence  of 
an  epidemic  alienation,  according  to  Plutarch,  the  young  females  hung  them- 
selves in  great  numbers  ;  but  when  the  magistrates  threatened  the  disgraceful 
exposure  of  the  body  of  the  next  felo  de  se,  the  epidemic  was  arrested.  A 
similar  alienation,  which  had  seized  the  women  in  a  portion  of  the  department 
of  Simplon,  was  cured  by  a  strong  appeal  to  their  moral  sense  and  religious 
feelings. 

t  Christian  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  168. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  79 

example,  persons  always  attacked  by  this  affection  in  churches 
where  it  is  encouraged,  will  be  perfectly  calm  in  churches  where  it 
is  discouraged,  however  affecting  may  be  the  service,  and  however 
great  the  mental  excitement."*  It  is  also  worthy  of  consideration 
that  these  bodily  affections  are  of  frequent  occurrence  at  the  pre- 
sent day,  among  those  who  continue  to  desire  and  encourage  them. 

It  appears,  then,  that  these  nervous  agitations  are  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  all  times  of  strong  excitement.  It  matters  little 
whether  the  excitement  arise  from  superstition,  fanaticism,  or  from 
the  preaching  of  the  truth.  If  the  imagination  be  strongly  affected, 
the  nervous  system  is  very  apt  to  be  deranged,  and  outcries,  faint- 
ings,  convulsions,  and  other  hysterical  symptoms,  are  the  conse- 
quence. That  these  effects  are  of  the  same  nature,  whatever  may 
be  the  remote  cause,  is  plain,  because  the  phenomena  are  the  same  ; 
the  apparent  circumstances  of  their  origin  the  same ;  they  all  have 
the  same  infectious  nature,  and  are  all  cured  by  the  same  means. 
They  are,  therefore,  but  different  forms  of  the  same  disease ;  and, 
whether  they  occur  in  a  convent  or  a  camp-meeting,  they  are  no 
more  a  token  of  the  divine  favour  than  hysteria  or  epilepsy. 

It  may  still  be  said,  that,  although  they  do  sometimes  arise  from 
other  causes,  they  may  be  produced  by  genuine  religious  feeling. 
This,  however,  never  can  be  proved.  The  fact  that  undoubted 
Christians  experience  these  effects,  is  no  proof  that  they  flow  from 
a  good  source ;  because  there  is  always  a  corrupt  mixture  in  the 
exercises  of  the  most  spiritual  men.  These  affections  may,  there- 
fore, flow  from  the  concomitants  of  genuine  religious  feelings,  and 

*  The  characteristic  now  under  consideration  did  not  escape  the  accurate 
observation  of  Edwards,  though  it  failed  to  disclose  to  him  the  true  nature  of 
these  nervous  agitations.  '"  It  is  evident,"  he  says,  "  from  experience,  that 
custom  has  a  strange  influence  in  these  things.  If  some  person  conducts 
them,  that  much  countenances  and  encourages  such  manifestations  of  great 
affections,  they  naturally  and  insensibly  prevail,  and  grow  by  degrees  una- 
voidable ;  but  afterwards,  when  they  come  under  another  kind  of  conduct,  the 
manner  of  external  appearances  will  strongly  alter.  It  is  manifest  that  ex- 
ample and  custom  have  some  way  or  other  a  secret  and  unsearchable  influence 
upon  those  actions  which  are  involuntary,  in  different  places,  and  in  the  same 
place  at  different  times." — Thoughts  on  the  Revival.    Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  232. 


80  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

not  from  those  feelings  themselves.  And  that  they  do  in  fact  flow 
from  that  source,  may  be  assumed,  because  in  other  cases  they 
certainly  have  that  origin  ;  and  because  all  the  known  effects  of 
true  religious  feelings  are  of  a  different  character.  Those  appre- 
hensions of  truth  which  arise  from  divine  illumination,  do  not  affect 
the  imagination,  but  the  moral  emotions,  which  are  very  different 
in  their  nature  and  effects  from  the  feelings  produced  by  a  heated 
fancy.  This  view  of  the  subject  is  greatly  confirmed  by  the  con- 
sideration, that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  lead  us  to  regard 
these  bodily  affections  as  the  legitimate  effects  of  religious  feeling. 
No  such  results  followed  the  preaching  of  Christ,  or  his  apostles. 
We  hear  of  no  general  outcries,  faintings,  convulsions,  or  ravings 
in  the  assemblies  which  they  addressed.  The  scriptural  examples 
cited  by  the  apologists  of  these  exhibitions  are  so  entirely  inappli- 
cable, as  to  be  of  themselves  sufficient  to  show  how  little  coun- 
tenance is  to  be  derived  from  the  Bible  for  such  irregularities. 
Reference  is  made,  for  example,  to  the  case  of  the  jailer  at  Philippi, 
who  fell  down  at  the  apostles'  feet ;  to  Acts  ii.  37,  ("  Now  when 
they  heard  this,  they  were  pricked  in  their  heart,  and  said,  Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?")  and  to  the  conversion  of  Paul. 
It  is,  however,  too  obvious  to  need  remark,  that  in  no  one  of  these 
cases  was  either  the  effect  produced,  or  the  circumstances  attend- 
ing its  production,  analogous  to  the  hysterical  convulsions  and  out- 
cries now  under  consideration. 

The  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  merely  negative  on  this 
subject.  Their  authority  is  directly  opposed  to  all  such  disorders. 
They  direct  that  all  things  should  be  done  decently  and  in  order. 
They  teach  us  that  God  is  not  the  God  of  confusion,  but  of  peace, 
in  all  the  churches  of  the  saints.  These  passages  have  particular 
reference  to  the  manner  of  conducting  public  worship.  They  forbid 
every  thing  which  is  inconsistent  with  order,  solemnity,  and  devout 
attention.  It  is  evident  that  loud  outcries  and  convulsions  are  in- 
consistent with  these  things,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  discouraged. 
They  cannot  come  from  God,  for  he  is  not  the  author  of  confusion. 
The  apology  made  in  Corinth  for  the  disorders  which  Paul  con- 
demned, was  precisely  the  same  as  that  urged  in  defence  of  these 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  81 

bodily  agitations.  We  ought  not  to  resist  the  Spirit  of  God,  said  the 
Corinthians  ;  and  so  said  all  those  who  encouraged  these  convulsions. 
Paul's  answer  was,  that  no  influence  which  conies  from  God  de- 
stroys our  self-control.  "  The  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to 
the  prophets."  Even  in  the  case  of  direct  inspiration  and  revela- 
tion, the  mode  of  communication  was  in  harmony  with  our  rational 
nature,  and  left  our  powers  under  the  control  of  reason  and  the 
will.  The  man,  therefore,  who  felt  the  divine  afflatus  had  no  right 
to  give  way  to  it,  under  circumstances  which  would  produce  noise 
and  confusion.  The  prophets  of  God  were  not  like  the  raving 
Pythoness  of  the  heathen  temples ;  nor  are  the  saints  of  God  con- 
verted into  whirling  dervishes  by  any  influence  of  which  he  is  the 
author.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Paul  would  have  severely 
reprobated  such  scenes  as  frequently  occurred  during  the  revival  of 
which  we  are  speaking.  He  would  have  said  to  the  people  substan- 
tially, what  he  said  to  the  Corinthians.  If  any  unbeliever  or  igno- 
rant man  come  to  your  assemblies,  and  hear  one  shouting  in 
ecstacy,  another  howling  in  anguish ;  if  he  see  some  falling,  some 
jumping,  some  lying  in  convulsions,  others  in  trances,  will  he  not 
say,  Ye  are  mad  ?  But  if  your  exercises  are  free  from  confusion, 
and  your  discourses  addressed  to  the  reason,  so  as  to  convince  and 
reprove,  he  will  confess  that  God  is  among  you  of  a  truth. 

Experience,  no  less  than  Scripture,  has  set  the  seal  of  reproba- 
tion upon  these  bodily  agitations.  If  they  are  of  the  nature  of  an 
infectious  nervous  disease,  it  is  as  much  an  act  of  infatuation  to  en- 
courage them,  as  to  endeavour  to  spread  epilepsy  over  the  land.  It 
is  easy  to  excite  such  things,  but  when  excited,  it  is  very  difficult 
to  suppress  them,  or  to  arrest  their  progress ;  and  they  have  never 
prevailed  without  the  most  serious  mischief.  They  bring  discredit 
upon  religion,  they  give  great  advantage  to  infidels  and  gainsayers, 
and  they  facilitate  the  progress  of  fanaticism.  When  sanctioned, 
the  people  delight  in  them,  as  they  do  in  all  strong  excitement. 
The  multitude  of  spurious  conversions,  the  prevalence  of  false  reli- 
gion, the  rapid  progress  of  fanaticism,  and  the  consequent  perma- 
nent declension  of  religion  immediately  after  the  great  revival,  are 

VOL.  II. — 6 


62  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

probably  to  be  attributed  to  the  favour  shown  to  these  bodily  agita- 
tions, as  much  as  to  any  one  cause. 

Besides  the  errors  above  specified,  which  were  sanctioned  by 
many  of  the  best  friends  of  the  revival,  there  were  others  which, 
though  reprobated  by  the  more  judicious,  became,  through  the 
patronage  of  the  more  ardent,  prolific  sources  of  evil.  There  was 
from  the  first  a  strong  leaven  of  enthusiasm,  manifesting  itself  in 
the  regard  paid  to  impulses,  inspirations,  visions,  and  the  pretended 
power  of  discerning  spirits.  This  was  decidedly  opposed  by  Edwards,* 
by  the  Boston  clergy,  by  Tennent,  and  many  others.  Whitefield, 
on  the  contrary,  was,  especially  in  the  early  part  of  his  career, 
deeply  infected  with  this  leaven.  When  he  visited  Northampton, 
in  1740,  Edwards  endeavoured  to  convince  him  of  the  dangerous 
tendency  of  this  enthusiastic  spirit,  but  without  much  success,  f 
He  had  such  an  idea  of  what  the  Scriptures  mean  by  the  guidance 
of  the  Spirit,  as  to  suppose  that  by  suggestions,  impressions,  or 
sudden  recollection  of  texts  of  the  Bible,  the  Christian's  duty  was 
divinely  revealed,  even  as  to  the  minutest  circumstance,  and  that 
at  times  even  future  events  were  thus  made  known.  On  the  strength 
of  such  an  impression  he  did  not  hesitate  publicly  to  declare  that 
his  unborn  child  would  prove  to  be  a  son. I  "  An  unaccountable 
but  very  strong  impression,"  that  he  should  preach  the  gospel,  was 
regarded  as  a  revelation  of  the  purpose  of  God  respecting  him.§ 
The  question  whether  he  should  return  to  England  was  settled  to 
his  satisfaction,  by  the  occurrence  to  his  mind  of  the  passage,  When 
Jesus  was  returned,  the  people  gladly  received  him.||  These  few 
examples  are  enough  to  illustrate  the  point  in  hand. 

In  Whitefield  there  was  much  to  counteract  the  operation  of  this 
spirit,  which  in  others  produced  its  legitimate  effects.  When  Daven- 
port was  asked  by  the  Boston  ministers  the  reason  of  any  of  his 
acts,  his  common  reply  was,  God  commanded  me.     When  asked 

*  Thoughts  on  the  Revival,  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  180. 

f  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  147. 

J  Gillies'  Life  of  Whitefield,  p.  63. 

\  Whitefield's  account  of  his  own  Life,  p.  11. 

||  Journal  from  Savannah  to  England,  p.  28. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  83 

whether  he  was  inspired,  he  answered,  they  might  call  it  inspira- 
tion, or  what  they  pleased.  The  man  who  attended  him  he  called 
his  armour-bearer,  because  he  was  led  to  take  him  as  a  follower,  by 
opening  on  the  story  of  Jonathan  and  his  armour-bearer.  He  con- 
sidered it  also  as  revealed,  that  he  should  convert  as  many  persons 
at  a  certain  place,  as  Jonathan  and  his  armour-bearer  slew  of  the 
Philistines.* 

This  was  the  only  one  of  the  forms  in  which  this  spirit  manifested 
itself.  Those  under  its  influence  pretended  to  a  power  of  discerning 
spirits,  of  deciding  at  once  who  was  and  who  was  not  converted ; 
they  professed  a  perfect  assurance  of  the  favour  of  God,  founded  not 
upon  scriptural  evidence,  but  inward  suggestion.  It  is  plain  that 
when  men  thus  give  themselves  up  to  the  guidance  of  secret  impres- 
sions, and  attribute  divine  authority  to  suggestions,  impulses,  and 
casual  occurrences,  there  is  no  extreme  of  error  or  folly  to  which 
they  may  not  be  led.  They  are  beyond  the  control  of  reason  or 
the  word  of  God.  They  have  a  more  direct  and  authoritative  com- 
munication of  the  divine  will  than  can  be  made  by  any  external 
and  general  revelation.  They  of  course  act  as  if  inspired  and  in- 
fallible. They  are  commonly  filled  with  spiritual  pride,  and  with  a 
bitter  denunciatory  spirit.  All  these  results  were  soon  manifested 
to  a  lamentable  extent  during  this  revival.  If  an  honest  man 
doubted  his  conversion,  he  was  declared  unconverted.  If  any  one 
was  filled  with  great  joy,  he  was  pronounced  a  child  of  God.  These 
enthusiasts  paid  great  regard  to  visions  and  trances,  and  would  pre- 
tend in  them  to  have  seen  heaven  or  hell,  and  particular  persons  in 
the  one  or  the  other.  They  paid  more  attention  to  inward  impres- 
sions than  to  the  word  of  God.  They  laid  great  stress  on  views  of 
an  outward  Christ,  as  on  a  throne,  or  upon  the  cross.  If  they  did 
not  feel  a  minister's  preaching,  they  maintained  he  was  uncon- 
verted, or  legal.  They  made  light  of  all  meetings  in  which  there 
was  no  external  commotion.  They  had  a  remarkable  haughtiness 
and  self-sufficiency,  and  a  fierce  and  bitter  spirit  of  zeal  and  cen- 
soriousness.f 

*  Chauncy's  Seasonable  Thoughts,  p.  196-198. 

f  Trumbull's  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  169 ;  whose  account  is  here  abridged. 


84  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

The  origin  and  progress  of  this  fanatical  spirit  is  one  of  th« 
most  instructive  portions  of  the  history  of  this  period.  In  1726, 
a  religious  excitement  commenced  in  New  Milford,  Connecticut, 
which  was  at  first  of  a  promising  character,  but  was  soon  per- 
verted. Its  subjects  opened  a  communication  with  the  enthusiasts 
of  Rhode  Island,  and  began  to  speak  slightly  of  the  Bible,  espe- 
cially of  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  to  condemn  the  ministers  of  the 
gospel  and  civil  magistrates.  They  organized  themselves  into  a 
separate  society,  and  appointed  officers  not  only  to  conduct  their 
meetings,  but  to  regulate  their  dress.  They  made  assurance  essen- 
tial to  faith:  they  undervalued  human  learning,  and  despised  the 
ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  They  laid  claim 
to  sinless  perfection,  and  claimed  that  the  standing  ministers  were 
unfit  to  preach,  and  that  the  people  ought  to  leave  them.*  One 
of  the  leaders  of  this  company  was  a  man  named  Ferris,  who 
entered  Yale  College  in  1729.  A  contemporary  writer  says  of 
this  gentleman,  He  told  me  he  was  certain  not  one  in  ten  of  the 
communicants  in  the  church  in  New  Haven  could  be  saved  ;  that 
he  should  have  a  higher  seat  in  heaven  than  Moses ;  that  he  knew 
the  will  of  God  in  all  things,  and  had  not  committed  any  sin  for 
six  years.  He  had  a  proud  and  haughty  spirit,  and  appeared 
greatly  desirous  of  applause.  He  obtained  a  great  ascendency  over 
certain  of  the  students,  especially  Davenport,  Wheelock,  and  Pome- 
roy,  who  lived  with  him  most  familiarly.  He  remained  in  college 
until  1732,  and  then  returned  to  New  Milford.  He  ultimately 
became  a  Quaker  preacher. f 

Such  was  the  origin  of  that  enthusiastical  and  fanatical  spirit, 
which  swept  over  the  New  England  churches.  Messrs.  "Wheelock 
and  Pomeroy  seem  soon  to  have  escaped  from  its  influence  ;  but 
Davenport  remained  long  under  its  power,  and  was  the  cause  of 
incalculable  mischief.  He  was  settled  as  pastor  of  the  church  in 
Southhold,  Long  Island.  In  March,  1740,  he  became  satisfied 
that  God  had  revealed  to  him  that  his  kingdom  was  coming  with 

*  Letter  of  the  Rev.  D.  Boardman,  pastor  of  the  church  at  New  Milford, 
dated,  1742,  and  printed  in  Chauncy's  Seasonable  Thoughts,  p.  202. 
t  Chauncy,  p.  212-15. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  85 

great  power,  and  that  he  had  an  extraordinary  call  to  labour  for 
its  advancement.  He  assembled  his  people  on  one  occasion,  and 
addressed  them,  continuously,  for  nearly  twenty-four  hours ;  until 
he  became  quite  wild.*  After  continuing  for  some  time  his  ex- 
citing labours  in  his  own  neighbourhood,  he  passed  over  into  Con- 
necticut. The  best  and  most  favourable  account  of  his  erratic 
course,  is  given  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Fish,f  who  knew  him  intimately. 
The  substance  of  this  account,  given  nearly  in  the  language  of  its 
author,  is  as  follows.  The  good  things  about  him,  says  this  writer, 
were,  that  he  was  a  fast  friend  of  the  doctrines  of  grace ;  fully 
declaring  the  total  depravity,  the  deplorable  wretchedness  and 
danger,  and  utter  inability  of  men  by  the  fall.  He  preached  with 
great  earnestness  the  doctrines  of  man's  dependence  on  the  sove- 
reign mercy  of  God;  of  regeneration  ;  of  justification  by  faith,  &c. 
The  things  that  were  evidently  and  dreadfully  wrong  about  him 
were,  that  he  not  only  gave  full  liberty  to  noise  and  outcries,  but 
promoted  them  with  all  his  power.  When  these  things  prevailed 
among  the  people,  accompanied  with  bodily  agitations,  the  good 
man  pronounced  them  tokens  of  the  presence  of  God.  Those  who 
passed  immediately  from  great  distress  to  great  joy,  he  declared, 
after  asking  them  a  few  questions,  to  be  converts ;  though  numbers 
of  such  converts,  in  a  short  time,  returned  to  their  old  way  of 
living,  and  were  as  carnal,  wicked,  and  void  of  experience,  as  ever 
they  were.  He  was  a  great  favourer  of  visions,  trances,  imagina- 
tions, and  powerful  impressions  in  others,  and  made  such  inward 
feelings  the  rule  of  his  own  conduct  in  many  respects.  He  greatly 
encouraged  lay  exhorters,  who  were  soon,  in  manj  cases,  pre- 
ferred by  the  people  to  the  letter-learned  rabbies,  sciibes,  phari- 
sees,  and  unconverted  ministers,  phrases  which  the  good  man 
would  frequently  use  with  such  peculiar  marks  not  only  of  odium, 
but  of  indication,  as  served  to  destroy  the  confidence  of  the  people 
in  their  ministers.  The  worst  thing,  however,  was  his  bold  and 
daring  enterprise  of  going  through  the  country  to  examine  all  the 
ministers  in  private,  and  then  publicly  declaring  his  judgment  of  their 
spiritual  state.     This  he  did  wherever  he  could  be  admitted  to  ex- 

*  Chauncy,  p.  189.  t  Sermons,  p.  116. 


86  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

amine  them.  Some  that  he  examined,  (though  for  aught  that  ap 
peared  as  godly  as  himself,)  were  pronounced  in  his  public  prayer, 
immediately  after  the  examination,  to  be  unconverted.  Those  who 
refused  to  be  examined,  were  sure  to  suffer  the  same  fate.  By  this 
tremendous  step  many  people,  relying  on  his  judgment,  were  as- 
sured they  had  unconverted  ministers ;  others  became  jealous  of 
their  pastors ;  and  all  were  told  by  this  wild  man,  that  they  had  as 
good  eat  ratsbane  as  hear  an  unconverted  minister.  In  his  zeal  to 
destroy  idolatry,  that  is,  pride  in  dress,  he  prevailed  upon  a  number 
of  his  followers  in  New  London,  to  cast  into  a  fire,  prepared  for 
the  purpose,  each  his  idol.  Whereupon  some  article  of  dress,  or 
some  ornament,  was  by  each  stripped  off  and  committed  to  the 
flames.  In  like  zeal  to  root  out  heresy,  a  number  of  religious 
books,  some  of  them  of  real  excellence,  were  cast  into  the  fire.* 

When  he  visited  Saybrook  in  August,  1741,  he  requested  Mr. 
Hart  to  grant  him  the  use  of  his  pulpit.  Mr.  Hart  replied,  that 
he  wished  to  know,  before  he  could  decide  on  his  application,  whe 
ther  he  had  denounced  many  of  his  fathers  and  brethren  in  the 
ministry  as  unconverted.  He  said  he  had,  and  that  his  object  was 
the  purification  of  the  church,  and  that  he  freely  urged  the  people 
not  to  attend  the  ministry  of  those  whom  he  had  thus  judged. 
The  pulpit  was  of  course  refused  him.  He  then  rose  and  calling 
to  his  adherents,  said,  Come,  let  us  go  forth  without  the  camp,  after 
the  Lord  Jesus,  bearing  his  reproach.  Oh  this  is  pleasant  to  suf- 
fer reproach  for  the  blessed  Jesus,  sweet  Jesus  !f  How  true  to 
nature  this  is !     The  man  who  was  going  about  the  country  de- 

*  Among  the  books  thus  consumed  were  Beveridge's  Thoughts  on  Religion ; 
part  of  Flavel's  works ;  one  piece  of  Dr.  Increase  Mather's,  one  of  Dr.  Col- 
man's,  &c.  &c.  Another  contemporary  gives  us  an  illustration  of  his  manner 
in  the  following  account.  On  one  occasion,  having  made  a  fervent  address, 
"  he  called  all  the  distressed  into  the  foremost  seats.  He  then  came  out  of 
the  pulpit  and  stripped  oif  his  upper  garments,  got  up  on  the  seats,  and  leapt 
up  and  down  for  some  time,  and  clapt  his  hands,  and  cried  out  in  these  words: 
The  war  goes  on;  the  fight  goes  on;  the  devil  goes  doAvn,  the  devil  goes  down. 
And  he  took  himself  to  stamping  and  screaming  most  dreadfully."  Chauncy, 
p.  99. 

•}•  Chauncy,  p.  154,  where  the  account  of  this  interview,  signed  by  Mr.  Han 
and  four  other  persons,  is  given  at  length. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  87 

nouncing  ministers,  and  overturning  congregations,  complains  of 
persecution,  because  a  pastor  shuts  his  pulpit  against  him. 

Mr.  Davenport  went  to  Boston  in  June,  1742.  He  attended 
the  morning  service  upon  the  Sabbath,  but  in  the  afternoon  absent- 
ed himself  "  from  an  apprehension  of  the  minister's  being  uncon- 
verted, which,"  says  Mr.  Prince,  "greatly  alarmed  us."  The  fol- 
lowing day  the  ministers  had  a  friendly  conference  with  him,  which 
led  to  their  publishing  a  declaration  testifying  against  his  depend- 
ing on  impulses,  his  condemning  ministers,  his  going  through  the 
streets  singing,  and  his  encouraging  lay  exhorters.  This  declara- 
tion was  signed  by  fourteen  ministers  of  Boston  and  Charlestown. 
Mr.  Davenport  denounced  the  pastors,  naming  some  as  unconverted, 
and  representing  the  rest  as  Jehoshaphat  in  Ahab's  army,  and 
exhorting  the  people  to  separate  from  them.  This,  adds  Mr.  Prince, 
put  an  effectual  stop  to  the  revival.* 

The  same  year  he  was  arrested  and  taken  before  the  legislature 
of  Connecticut,  on  the  charge  of  disorderly  conduct.  The  Assem- 
bly judged  that  although  his  conduct  had  a  tendency  to  disturb  the 
peace,  yet  as  "  the  said  Davenport  was  under  the  influence  of  en- 
thusiastical  impressions  and  impulses,  and  thereby  disordered  in  the 
rational  faculties  of  his  mind,  he  is  rather  to  be  pitied  and  com- 
passionated, than  to  be  treated  as  otherwise  he  might  be."  They 
therefore  ordered  that  he  should  be  transported  out  of  the  colony, 
and  handed  over  to  his  friends.  The  solution  here  given  of  Da- 
venport's conduct,  is  certainly  the  most  charitable.  That  any 
young  man  should  go  about  the  country  to  examine  grey-headed 
ministers  on  their  experience,  denouncing  such  as  would  not  sub- 
mit to  his  inquisition  ;  declaring  some  of  the  best  men  in  the  church 
to  be  unconverted ;  exhorting  the  people  to  desert  their  ministry ; 
making  religion  to  consist  in  noisy  excitement,  and  trampling  on 
order  and  decency  in  the  house  of  God,  can  only  be  accounted  for 
on  the  assumption  of  insanity  or  wickedness.  Davenport's  subse- 
quent retractions,  his  altered  conduct,  and  the  judgment  of  his  con- 
temporaries, are  all  in  favour  of  the  former  solution. 

After  having  pursued  his  disorderly  and  destructive  course  for 
*  Christian  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  407-8. 


88  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

a  number  of  years,  he  was  convinced  of  his  errors,  and  published 
a  confession,  in  which  he  acknowledged  that  he  had  been  influenced 
by  a  false  spirit  in  judging  ministers ;  in  exhorting  their  people  to 
forsake  their  ministry ;  in  making  impulses  a  rule  of  conduct ;  in 
encouraging  lay  exhorters  ;  and  in  disorderly  singing  in  the  streets. 
He  speaks  of  the  burning  the  books  and  clothes  at  New  London, 
as  matter  for  deep  and  lasting  humiliation,  and  prays  that  God 
would  guard  him  from  such  errors  in  future,  and  stop  the  progress 
of  those  who  had  been  corrupted  by  his  word  and  example.*  This 
latter  petition  was  not  granted.  He  found  it  easy  to  kindle  the 
flame  of  fanaticism,  but  impossible  to  quench  it.  "  When  he  came," 
says  Mr.  Fish,  "to  Stonington,  after  his  recantation,  it  was  with 
such  a  mild,  pleasant,  meek,  and  humble  spirit,  broken  and  con- 
trite, as  I  scarce  ever  saw  exceeded  or  equalled.  He  not  only 
owned  his  fault  in  private,  and  in  a  most  Christian  manner  asked 
forgiveness  of  some  ministers  whom  he  had  befcre  treated  amiss, 
but  in  a  large  assembly  made  a  public  recantation  of  his  errors  and 
mistakes."  f  This  same  writer  informs  us,  however,  that  those 
who  were  ready  to  adore  him  in  the  time  of  his  false  zeal,  now 
denounced  him  as  dead,  as  having  joined  with  the  world  and  car- 
nal ministers.  The  work  of  disorder  and  division,  therefore,  went 
on,  little  hindered  by  Mr.  Davenport's  repentance ;  and  the  evils 
continue  to  this  day.  Davenport  afterwards  removed  to  New  Jer- 
sey, and  settled  at  Pennington,  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Brunswick.  His  remains  lie  in  a  grave-yard  attached 
to  a  small  church,  long  since  in  ruins. 

The  censorious  spirit,  which  so  extensively  prevailed  at  this  pe- 
riod, was  another  of  those  fountains  of  bitter  waters,  which  de- 
stroyed the  health  and  vigour  of  the  church.  That  it  should  char- 
acterize such  acknowledged  fanatics  as  Davenport  and  his  associ- 
ates, is  what  might  be  expected.  It  was,  however,  the  reproach 
and  sin  of  far  better  men.  Edwards  stigmatizes  it,  as  the  worst 
disease  which  attended  the  revival,  "  the  most  contrary  to  the  spirit 
and  rules  of  Christianity,  and  of  the  worst  consequences."  J     The 

*  Christian  History,  No.  82,  83.     Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  180. 

f  Sermons  quoted  above.  J  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  238. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  89 

evil  in  question  consists  in  regarding  and  treating,  on  insuffi- 
cient grounds,  those  who  profess  to  be  Christians,  as  though  they 
were  hypocrites.  The  only  adequate  ground  for  publicly  discred- 
iting such  profession,  is  the  denial  of  those  doctrines  which  the 
Bible  teaches  us  are  essential  to  true  religion,  or  a  cousse  of  con- 
duct incompatible  with  the  Christian  character.  There  are,  indeed, 
cases  where  there  is  no  want  of  orthodoxy,  and  no  irregularity  of 
conduct,  in  which  we  cannot  avoid  painful  misgivings.  But  such 
misgivings  are  no  sufficient  ground  on  which  to  found  either  public 
declarations,  or  public  treatment  of  those  who  may  be  the  object 
of  them.  Does  any  one  dare,  on  any  such  ground,  to  declare  a 
man  of  reputable  character  a  thief,  or  a  drunkard,  or  to  surmise 
away  the  honour  of  a  virtuous  woman  ?  Such  conduct  is  not  only 
a  sin  against  God,  but  a  penal  offence  against  society.  Yet  in  no 
such  case  is  the  pain  inflicted,  or  the  mischief  occasioned,  compar- 
able to  what  arises  from  taking  from  a  minister  his  character  for 
piety,  and  teaching  the  people  to  regard  him  as  a  hypocrite.  This 
is  often  done,  however,  with  heartless  unconcern.  It  was  by  the 
dreadful  prevalence  of  this  habit  of  censorious  judging  during  the 
revival,  that  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  their  pastors  was  de- 
stroyed, their  usefulness  arrested,  their  congregations  divided,  and 
the  fire-brands  of  jealousy  and  malice  cast  into  every  society,  and 
almost  into  every  household.  It  was  this,  more  than  any  thing 
else,  that  produced  that  conflagration  in  which  the  graces,  the  peace, 
and  union  of  the  church  were  consumed.  Though  this  censorious 
spirit  prevailed  most  among  those  who  had  the  least  reason  to  think 
themselves  better  than  others,  it  was  to  a  lamentable  degree  the 
failing  of  really  good  men. 

It  is  impossible  to  open  the  journals  of  Whitefield  without  being 
painfully  struck,  on  the  one  hand  with  the  familiar  confidence  with 
which  he  speaks  of  his  own  religious  experience,  and  on  the  other 
with  the  carelessness  with  which  he  pronounces  others  to  be  godly 
or  graceless,  on  the  slightest  acquaintance  or  report.  Had  these 
journals  been  the  private  record  of  his  feelings  and  opinions,  this 
conduct  would  be  hard  to  excuse ;  but  as  they  were  intended  for 
the  public,  and  actually  given  to  the  world  almost  as  soon  as  writ- 


00  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCII 

ten,  it  constitutes  a  far  more  serious  offence.  Thus  he  tells  us,  he 
called  on  a  clergyman^  (giving  the  initials  of  his  name,  which, 
under  the  circumstances  completely  identified  him,)  and  was  kindly 
received,  but  found  "  he  had  no  experimental  knowledge  of  the  new 
birth."  &uch  intimations  are  slipped  off,  as  though  they  were 
matters  of  indifference.  On  equally  slight  grounds  he  passed  judg- 
ment on  whole  classes  of  men.  After  his  rapid  journey  through 
New  England,  he  published  to  the  world  his  apprehension  "  lest 
many,  nay  most  that  preach  do  not  experimentally  know  Christ."* 
•After  being  six  days  in  Boston,  he  recorded  his  opinion,  derived 
from  what  he  heard,  that  the  state  of  Cambridge  college  for  piety 
and  true  godliness,  was  not  better  than  that  of  the  English  univer- 
sities^ which  he  elsewhere  says,  "  were  sunk  into  mere  seminaries 
of  paganism,  Christ  or  Christianity  being  scarce  so  much  as  named 
among  them."  Of  Yale  he  pronounces  the  same  judgment,  saying 
of  it  and  Harvard,  "  their  light  is  now  become  darkness,  darkness 
that  may  be  felt."  A  vindication  of  Harvard  was  written  by  the  Rev. 
Edward  Wigglesworth,  a  man  "so  conspicuous  for  his  talents,  and 
so  exemplary  for  every  Christian  virtue,"  that  he  was  unanimously 
appointed  the  first  Hollis  professor  of  divinity  in  the  college.  The 
President  of  Yale,  at  that  time,  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  Clap,  an  ortho- 
dox and  learned  man,  "  exemplary  for  piety,"  and  zealous  for  the 
truth. |  Whitefield  was  much  in  the  habit  of  speaking  of  ministers 
as  being  unconverted;  so  that  the  consequence  was,  that  in  a  coun- 
try where  "  the  preaching  and  conversation  of  far  the  bigger  part 
of  the  ministers  were  undeniably  as  became  the  gospel,  such  a 
spirit  of  jealousy  and  evil  surmising  was  raised  by  the  influence 
and  example  of  a  young  foreigner,  that  perhaps  there  was  not  a 
single  town,"  either  in  Massachusetts  or  Connecticut,  in  which 
many  of  the  people  were  not  so  prejudiced  against  their  pastors, 
as  to  be  rendered  very  unlikely  to  be  benefited  by  them.§  This 
is  the  testimony  of  men  who  had  received  Mr.  Whitefield,  on  his 

*  New  England  Journal,  p.  95.  t  Ibid.  p.  12. 

X  Allen's  American  Biographical  Dictionary. 

\  Letter  to  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield,  by  Edward  Wigglesworth,  in  the 
name  of  the  faculty  of  Harvard  College,  1745. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  91 

first  visit  with  open  arms.  They  add,  that  the  effect  of  his  preach- 
ing, and  of  that  of  Mr.  Tennent,  was,  that  before  he  left  New 
England,  ministers  were  commonly  spoken  of  as  pharisees  and  un- 
converted.* The  fact  is,  Whitefield  had,  in  England,  got  into  the 
habit  of  taking  it  for  granted,  that  every  minister  was  unconverted, 
unless  he  had  special  evidence  to  the  contrary.  This  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at,  since,  according  to  all  contemporaneous  accounts,  the 
great  majority  of  the  episcopal  clergy  of  that  day  did  not  profess 
to  hold  the  doctrines  of  grace,  nor  to  believe  in  what  Whitefield 
considered  experimental  religion.  There  was,  therefore,  no  great 
harm  in  taking  for  granted  that  men  had  not,  what  they  did  not 
profess  to  have.  When,  however,  he  came  to  New  England,  where 
the  great  majority  of  the  ministers  still  continued  to  profess  the 
faith  of  their  fathers,  and  laid  claim  to  the  character  of  experi- 
mental Christians  in  Whitefield's  own  sense  of  the  term,  it  was  a 
great  injustice  to  proceed  on  the  assumption  that  these  claims  were 
false,  and  take  it  for  granted  that  all  were  graceless  who  had  not  to 
him  exhibited  evidence  to  the  contrary. 

The  same  excuse  cannot  be  made  for  Mr.  Tennent ;  and  as  his 
character  was  more  impetuous,  so  his  censures  were  more  sweeping 
and  his  denunciations  more  terrible  than  those  of  Whitefield.  It 
has  been  already  mentioned,  that  in  1740  he  read  a  paper  before 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  to  prove  that  many  of  his  brethren 
were  "  rotten-hearted  hypocrites  ;"  assigning  reasons  for  that  belief, 
which  would  not  have  justified  the  exclusion  of  any  private  mem- 
ber from  the  communion  of  the  church.  About  the  same  time  he 
published  his  famous  sermon  on  an  unconverted  ministry,  which  is 
one  of  the  most  terrible  pieces  of  denunciation  in  the  English  lan- 
guage. The  picture  there  drawn,  he  afterwards  very  clearly  inti- 
mated, (what  was  indeed  never  doubted,)  was  intended  for  a  large 
portion  of  his  own  ministerial  brethren.  As,  however,  this  con- 
duct was  one  of  the  main  causes  of  the  schism  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  whioh  occurred  in  1741,  it  will  more  properly  come  under 
consideration  in  the  following  chapter. 

*  Letter  to  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield,  by  Edward  Wigglesworth,  in  the 
name  of  the  faculty  of  Harvard  College,  1745,  p.  60. 


92  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

The  great  sinfulness  of  this  censorious  spirit,  and  his  own 
offences  in  this  respect,  Mr.  Tennent  afterwards  very  penitently 
acknowledged.  In  a  letter  to  President  Dickinson,  dated  Feb- 
ruary 12,  1742,  he  says,  "  I  have  had  many  afflicting  thoughts 
about  the  debates  which  have  subsisted  for  some  time  in  our  Synod. 
I  would  to  God  the  breach  were  healed,  were  it  the  will  of  the 
Almighty.  As  for  my  own  part,  wherein  I  have  mismanaged  in 
doing  what  I  did,  I  do  look  upon  it  to  be  my  duty,  and  should  be 
willing  to  acknowledge  it  in  the  openest  manner.  I  cannot  justify 
the  excessive  heat  of  temper  which  has  sometime  appeared  in  my 
conduct.  I  have  been  of  late,  (since  I  returned  from  New  England,) 
visited  with  much  spiritual  desertion  and  distresses  of  various  kinds, 
coming  in  a  thick  and  almost  continual  succession,  which  have  given 
me  a  greater  discovery  of  myself,  than  I  think  I  ever  had  before. 
These  things,  with  the  trial  of  the  Moravians,  have  given  me  a 
clear  view  of  the  danger  of  every  thing  which  tends  to  enthusiasm 
and  division  in  the  visible  church.  I  think  that  while  the  enthu- 
siastical  Moravians,  and  Long-Beards,  or  Pietists,  are  uniting  their 
bodies,  (no  doubt  to  increase  their  strength,  and  render  themselves 
more  considerable,)  it  is  a  shame  that  the  ministers,  who  are  in  the 
main  of  sound  principles  of  religion,  should  be  divided  and  quar- 
relling. Alas,  for  it,  my  soul  is  sick  for  these  things !  I  wish  that 
some  scriptural  healing  methods  could  be  fallen  upon  to  put  an  end 
to  these  confusions.  Some  time  since  I  felt  a  disposition  to  fall 
upon  my  knees,  if  I  had  opportunity,  to  entreat  them  to  be  at 
peace.  I  add  no  more  at  present,  but  humble  and  hearty  saluta- 
tions ;  and  remain,  with  all  due  honour  and  respect,  your  poor 
worthless  brother  in  the  gospel  ministry. 

"  P.  S.  I  break  open  the  letter  myself,  to  add  my  thoughts 
about  some  extraordinary  things  in  Mr.  Davenport's  conduct.  As 
to  his  making  his  judgment  about  the  internal  state  of  persons,  or 
their  experience,  a  term  of  church  fellowship,  I  believe  it  is  unscrip- 
tural,  and  of  awful  tendency  to  rend  and  tear  the  church.  It  is 
bottomed  upon  a  false  base,  viz. :  That  a  certain  and  infallible 
knowledge  of  the  good  estate  of  men  is  attainable  in  this  life  from 
their  experience.  The  practice  is  schismatical,  inasmuch  as  it  seta 
up  a  new  term  of  communion  which  Christ  has  not  fixed. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  93 

u  The  late  method  of  setting  up  separate  meetings  upon  the  sup- 
posed unregeneracy  of  pastors  of  places,  is  enthusiastical,  proud, 
and  schismatical.  All  that  fear  God  ought  to  oppose  it,  as  a  most 
dangerous  engine  to  bring  the  churches  into  the  most  damnable 
errors  and  confusions.  The  practice  is  built  upon  a  two-fold  false 
hypothesis,  viz. :  Infallibility  of  knowledge,  and  that  unconverted 
ministers  will  be  used  as  instruments  of  no  good  to  the  church. 

"  The  practice  of  openly  exposing  ministers  who  are  supposed 
to  be  unconverted,  in  public  discourse,  by  particular  application  of 
such  times  and  places,  serves  only  to  provoke  them,  instead  of 
doing  them  any  good,  and  to  declare  our  own  arrogance.  It  is  an 
unprecedented,  divisial,  and  pernicious  practice.  It  is  lording  it 
over  our  brethren  to  a  degree  superior  to  what  any  prelate  has  pre- 
tended since  the  coming  of  Christ,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  pope  only 
excepted ;  though  I  really  do  not  remember  to  have  read  that  the 
pope  went  on  at  this  rate. 

"  The  sending  out  of  unlearned  men  to  teach  others,  upon  the 
supposition  of  their  piety,  in  ordinary  cases,  seems  to  bring  the 
ministry  into  contempt ;  to  cherish  enthusiasm,  and  bring  all  into 
confusion.  Whatever  fair  face  it  may  have,  it  is  a  most  perverse 
practice.  The  practice  of  singing  in  the  streets  is  a  piece  of  weak- 
ness and  enthusiastical  ostentation. 

"  I  wish  you  success,  dear  sir,  in  your  journey ;  my  soul  is  grieved 
for  such  enthusiastical  fooleries.  They  portend  much  mischief  to 
the  poor  church  of  God,  if  they  be  not  seasonably  checked.  May 
your  labours  be  blest  for  that  end.  I  must  also  express  my  abhor- 
rence of  all  pretence  to  immediate  inspiration,  or  following  imme- 
diate impulses,  as  an  enthusiastical  perilous  ignis  fatuus."* 

A  few  years  later,  when  the  evils  arising  from  the  rash  denun- 
ciation of  professing  Christians  and  ministers  had  become  more 
apparent,  Mr.  Tennent  protested  against  it  in  the  strongest  terms. 
"  It  is  cruel  and  censorious  judging,"  he  says,  "  to  condemn  the 
state  of  those  we  know  not,  and  to  condemn  positively  and  openly 
the  spiritual  state  of  such  as  are  sound  in  fundamental  doctrines, 

*  The  above  letter  was  printed  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  August  12, 
1742 ;  and  transcribed  into  Mr.  Hazard's  MSS. 


94  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  regular  in  life.  The  way  to  obtain  quickening  grace  is  the 
path  of  duty,  and  not  the  scandalous  practice  of  that  God-provok- 
ing, church-rending  iniquity,  rash  judging.  This  may  quicken 
indeed,  but  not  to  any  thing  good,  but  to  backbiting,  slandering, 
wrath,  and  malignity,  and  all  manner  of  mischief.  Oh  that  a  gra- 
cious God  would  open  the  eyes  of  the  children  of  men,  to  see  the 
inexpressible  baseness  and  horrors  of  this  detestable  impiety,  which 
is  pregnant  with  innumerable  evils."*  He  even  denies  the  right 
of  any  man  to  judge  of  the  spiritual  state  of  others  on  the  ground 
of  their  inward  experience,  or  to  make  such  judgment  the  ground 
of  his  public  conduct  towards  them.  "The  terms  of  Christian  fel- 
lowship," he  says,  "  which  God  has  fixed,  are  soundness  in  the 
main  doctrines  of  religion,  and  a  regular  life.  I  know  of  no  pas- 
sage of  the  Bible  that  proves  converting  grace,  or  the  church's 
judgment  of  it,  to  be  a  term  of  Christian  communion,  of  divine 
appointment."!  And  in  another  place,  he  says,  "  I  desire  to  know 
where  Almighty  God  has  given  any  of  the  children  of  men  the 
right  to  inspect  into  the  spiritual  experiences  of  others,  so  as  to 
make  our  judgment  of  them,  abstract  from  their  doctrine  and  life, 
the  ground  of  our  opinion  concerning  the  state  of  their  souls,  and 
of  our  public  conduct  towards  them.  For  my  part,  I  know  of  no 
place  in  Scripture  which  gives  such  a  power  to  any  of  the  sons  of 
men,  and  much  less  to  every  man."|  Yet  this  good  man  allowed 
himself  publicly  to  denounce  as  graceless,  multitudes  of  his  brethren, 
whom  he  admitted  to  be  sound  in  the  faith  and  orderly  in  their 
lives,   and    thus  greatly  aided    in    producing    that    state    of  con- 

*  Irenicum,  or  Plea  for  the  Peace  of  Jerusalem,  by  Gilbert  Tennent.  Phila- 
delphia, 1749,  p.  90.  f  Ibid.  p.  79. 

X  Ibid.  p.  55.  —  On  page  79,  he  has  the  following  note:  "I  cannot  find 
that  the  Christians  of  the  first  three  centuries  after  Christ,  made  gracious 
experiences,  or  the  church's  judgment  about  them,  terms  of  communion.  They 
made  no  inquiries  about  them  as  to  baptism,  and  all  that  were  baptized,  and 
of  adult  age  and  free  from  church  censure,  were  admitted  to  the  sacrament." 
A  few  years  before,  he  charged  some  of  his  brethren  with  acting  on  this  prin- 
ciple (though  they  denied  it),  and  made  it  one  of  his  most  prominent  reasons 
for  believing  them  to  be  unconverted.  See  the  paper  which  was  read  before 
the  S\nod  in  1740. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  95 

fusion  and  strife  which  he  afterwards  so  strenuously  laboured  to 
correct. 

The  extent  to  which  the  sin  of  censoriousness  prevailed  during 
this  revival,  may  be  inferred,  not  only  from  the  complaints  of 
those  who  were  unrighteously  condemned,  but  from  the  frequency 
with  which  it  was  testified  against  by  the  best  friends  of  religion, 
and  the  confessions  of  those  who  had  most  grievously  offended  in 
this  respect.  One  great  evil  of  this  spirit  is,  that  it  is  contagious, 
and  in  a  sense,  hereditary.  That  is,  there  always  will  be  men  dis- 
posed to  rake  up  the  sins  and  errors  of  these  pious  denouncers  ; 
and  on  the  score  of  these  deformities,  to  proclaim  themselves  the 
Tennents  and  Whitefields  of  their  own  generation.  If  the  fruit 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness, 
goodness,  faith,  meekness,  then  may  we  be  sure  that  a  proud,  arro- 
gant, denunciatory,  self-confident,  and  self-righteous  spirit  is  not 
of  God ;  and  that  any  work  which  claims  to  be  a  revival  of  reli- 
gion, and  is  characterized  by  such  a  spirit,  is  so  far  spurious  and 
fanatical.  All  attempts  to  account  for,  or  excuse  such  a  temper 
on  the  ground  of  uncommon  manifestations,  or  uncommon  hatred 
of  sin,  or  extraordinary  zeal  for  holiness  and  the  salvation  of  souls, 
are  but  apologies  for  sin.  The  clearer  our  apprehensions  of  God, 
the  greater  will  be  our  reverence  and  humility  ;  the  more  distinct 
our  views  of  eternal  things,  the  greater  will  be  our  solemnity  and 
carefulness ;  the  more  we  know  of  sin,  of  our  own  hearts,  and  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  more  shall  we  be  forbearing,  forgiving,  and  lamb- 
like, in  our  disposition  and  conduct.  "  Gracious  affections  do  not 
tend  to  make  men  bold,  noisy,  and  boisterous,  but  rather  to  speak 
trembling.  When  Ephraim  spake  trembling,  he  exalted  himself 
in  Israel."*  The  evidence  from  Scripture  is  full  and  abundant, 
"  that  those  who  are  truly  gracious  are  under  the  government  of 
the  lamb-like,  dove-like  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  this  is  essen- 
tially and  eminently  the  nature  of  the  saving  grace  of  the  gospel, 
and  the  proper  spirit  of  true  Christianity.  We  may  therefore 
undoubtedly  determine  that  all  truly  Christian  affections  are  at- 
tended with  this  spirit,  that  this  is  the  natural  tendency  of  the  fear 

*  Edwards  on  the  Affections,  p.  393. 


96  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  hope,  the  sorrow  and  joy,  the  confidence  and  zeal  of  true 
Christians."* 

Another  of  the  evils  of  this  period  of  excitement,  was  the  dis- 
regard shown  to  the  common  rules  of  ecclesiastical  order,  especially 
in  the  course  pursued  by  itinerant  preachers  and  lay  exhorters. 
With  respect  to  the  former,  no  one  complained  of  regularly  or- 
dained ministers  acting  the  part  of  evangelists ;  that  is,  of  their 
going  to  destitute  places,  and  preaching  the  gospel  to  those  who 
would  not  otherwise  have  an  opportunity  of  hearing  it.  The  thing 
complained  of  was,  that  these  itinerants  came  into  parishes  of  set- 
tled ministers,  and  without  their  knowledge,  or  against  their  wishes, 
insisted  on  preaching  to  the  people.  This  was  a  thing  of  very  fre- 
quent, almost  daily  occurrence,  and  was  a  fruitful  source  of  heart- 
burnings and  divisions. 

It  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  common  under- 
standing of  the  Christian  church,  that  the  pastoral  relation  is  of 
divine  appointment.  Ministers  are  commanded  to  take  heed  to  the 
flocks  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  made  them  overseers.  If 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  made  one  man  an  overseer  of  a  flock,  what 
right  has  another  man  to  interfere  with  his  charge  ?  This  relation 
not  only  imposes  duties,  but  it  also  confers  rights.  It  imposes  the 
duties  of  teaching  and  governing ;  of  watching  for  souls  as  those 
who  must  give  an  account.  It  confers  the  right  to  claim  obedience 
as  spiritual  instructers  and  governors.  Hence  the  people  are  com- 
manded to  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  them,  and  to  submit 
themselves.  They  have  indeed  the  right  to  select  their  pastor,  but 
having  selected  him,  they  are  bound  by  the  authority  of  God,  to 
submit  to  him  as  such.  They  have  moreover,  in  extreme  cases, 
the  right  to  desert  or  discard  him  ;  as  a  wife  has  in  extreme  cases, 
the  right  to  leave  her  husband,  or  a  child  to  renounce  the  authority 
of  a  parent.  But  this  cannot  be  done  for  slight  reasons,  without 
offending  God.  In  like  manner,  as  a  stranger  has  a  right,  in  ex- 
treme cases,  to  take  a  child  from  the  control  and  instruction  of  a 
father,  or  withdraw  a  wife  from  the  authority  and  custody  of  her 
husband,  so  also  there  are  cases,  in  which  he  may  interfere  between 

*  Edwards  on  the  Affections,  p.  387. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  97 

a  pastor  and  his  people.  Interference  in  any  one  of  these  cases, 
is  a  violation  of  divinely  recognized  rights ;  and  to  be  innocent, 
must,  in  every  instance,  have  an  adequate  justification. 

Mr.  Tennent  admitted  these  principles  to  their  fullest  extent ; 
he  justified  his  conduct  and  that  of  his  associates,  on  the  ground 
that  the  ordinary  rules  of  ecclesiastical  order  cease  to  be  obli- 
gatory in  times  of  general  declension.*  When  the  majority  of 
ministers  are  unconverted  men,  and  contentedly  unsuccessful  in 
their  work,  it  was,  he  maintained,  the  right  of  any  one  who  could, 
to  preach  the  gospel  to  their  people,  and  the  duty  of  the  people  to 
forsake  the  ministrations  of  their  pastors.  Admitting  the  correct- 
ness of  this  principle,  when  can  it  be  properly  applied  ?  When 
may  it  be  lawfully  taken  for  granted,  that  a  minister  is  uncon- 
verted and  unfit  for  his  office  ?  According  to  Tennent's  own  sober 
and  deliberate  judgment,  this  could  be  rightfully  done  only  when 
he  either  rejected  some  fundamental  doctrine,  or  was  immoral  in 
his  conduct.  And  even  when  this  was  the  case,  the  obviously  cor- 
rect course  would  be,  to  endeavour  to  have  him  removed  from  office 
by  a  competent  authority.  Not  until  this  had  been  proved  to  be 
impossible,  would  any  man  be  justified  in  trampling  upon  the  rights 
of  a  brother  minister.  The  conduct  of  Mr.  Tennent  and  that  of 
his  associates,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  his  own  principles.  They 
not  only  made  no  effort  to  have  those  ministers  removed  from  office, 
whom  they  regarded  as  unregenerate  or  unfaithful,  but  they  chose 
to  assume  them  to  be  unconverted,  and  on  the  ground  of  that 
assumption,  to  enter  their  congregations,  and  to  exhort  the  people 
to  forsake  their  ministry,  though  they  admitted  them  to  be  sound 
in  all  the  main  articles  of  religion,  and  regular  in  their  lives.  This 
disorderly    course    was,   in    many    cases,   productive    of  shameful 

*  Speaking  of  such  rules,  which  he  had  enforced  with  great  earnestness 
in  his  discourse  against  the  Moravians,  he  says,  in  vindication  of  his  con- 
sistency, "  On  the  supposition  that  a  number  of  ministers  are  either  unsound 
in  doctrine,  or  unfaithful  and  contentedly  unsuccessful  in  their  work,  then  is 
it  not  lawful  to  suspend  the  aforesaid  rules  for  a  season  ?"  —  Remarks  on  the 
Protest,  by  which  the  members  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  were  ex 
eluded  from  Synod. 

VOL.  II. — 7 


98  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

conflicts,  and  was  in  general  one  of  the  most  crying  evils  of  the 
times. 

Whitefield  far  out-did  Mr.  Tennent,  as  to  this  point.  He  admit- 
ted none  of  the  principles  which  Mr.  Tennent  believed,  in  ordinary 
times,  ought  to  be  held  sacred.  He  assumed  the  right,  in  virtue 
of  his  ordination,  to  preach  the  gospel  wherever  he  had  an  oppor- 
tunity, "  even  though  it  should  be  in  a  place  where  officers  were 
already  settled,  and  the  gospel  was  fully  and  faithfully  preached. 
This,  I  humbly  apprehend,"  he  adds,  "is  every  gospel  minister's 
indisputable  privilege."  *  It  mattered  not  whether  the  pastors  who 
thus  fully  and  faithfully  preached  the  gospel,  were  willing  to  con- 
sent to  the  intrusion  of  the  itinerant  evangelist  or  not.  "  If  pul- 
pits should  be  shut,"  he  says,  "blessed  be  God,  the  fields  are  open, 
and  I  can  go  without  the  camp,  bearing  the  Redeemer's  reproach. 
This  I  glory  in ;  believing  if  I  suffer  for  it,  I  suffer  for  righteous- 
ness' sake."f  If  Whitefield  had  the  right  here  claimed,  then  of 
course  Davenport  had  it,  and  so  every  fanatic  and  errorist  has  it. 
This  doctrine  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  what  the  Bible  teaches 
of  the  nature  of  the  pastoral  relation,  and  with  every  form  of  ec- 
clesiastical government,  episcopal,  presbyterian,  or  congregational. 
Whatever  plausible  pretences  may  be  urged  in  its  favour,  it  has 
never  been  acted  upon  without  producing  the  greatest  practical  evils. 

As  soon  as  this  habit  of  itinerant  preaching  within  the  bounds 
of  settled  congregations,  began  to  prevail,  it  excited  a  lively  oppo- 
sition. The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  twice  unanimously  resolved  that 
no  minister  should  preach  in  any  congregation  without  the  consent 
of  the  presbytery  to  which  the  congregation  belonged. |  As  soon, 
however,  as  the  revival  fairly  commenced,  Mr.  Tennent  and  his 
associates  refused  to  be  bound  by  the  rule ;  and,  for  the  sake  of 
peace,  it  was  given  up.  The  legislature  of  Connecticut  made  it 
penal  for  any  minister  to  preach  within  the  bounds  of  the  parish 
of  another  minister,  unless  duly  invited  by  the  pastor  and  people. § 

*  Whitefield's  letter  to  the  president,  professors,  &c.  of  Harvard  Cjllege. 
Boston,  1745  :  p.  17.  t  Ibid.  p.  22. 

t  See  Part  First  of  this  History,  p.  206. 
3  Trumbull's  Connecticut,  vol.  ii.  p.  162. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  99 

The  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  in  1742,  after  giving 
thanks  for  the  revival,  bear  their  testimony  against  "  ministers  dis- 
orderly intruding  into  other  ministers'  parishes."  *  The  conven- 
tion of  ministers  of  Massachusetts,  in  1743,  declared  this  kind  of 
itinerant  preaching,  "  without  the  knowledge,  or  against  the  leave 
of  settled  pastors,"  to  be  "  a  breach  of  order,  and  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  sentiments  of  our  fathers,  expressed  in  their 
Platform  of  Church  Discipline."  f  And  the  assembly  of  pastors 
held  at  Boston,  July,  1743,  in  their  testimony  in  behalf  of  the 
revival,  express  it  as  their  judgment  "  that  ministers  do  not  invade 
the  province  of  others,  and,  in  ordinary  cases,  preach  in  another's 
parish,  without  his  knowledge  and  consent."  J  Notwithstanding 
this  general  concurrence  among  the  friends  of  religion,  in  con- 
demning this  disorderly  practice,  it  prevailed  to  a  great  extent, 
and  resulted  in  dividing  congregations,  unsettling  ministers,  and 
introducing  endless  contentions  and  confusion. 

As  to  lay  preaching,  though  of  frequent  occurrence,  it  found 
little  favour  with  any  but  the  openly  fanatical.  Tennent  in  a  letter 
to  Edwards,  written  probably  in  the  autumn  of  1741,  says,  "  As  to 
the  subject  you  mentioned,  of  laymen  being  sent  out  to  exhort  and 
teach,  supposing  them  to  be  real  converts,  I  cannot  but  think,  if  it 
be  encouraged  and  continued,  it  will  be  of  dreadful  consequence  to 
the  church's  peace  and  soundness  in  the  faith.  It  is  base  presump- 
tion, whatever  zeal  be  pretended  to,  notwithstanding,  for  any  per- 
sons to  take  this  honour  to  themselves,  unless  they  be  called  of 
God,  as  was  Aaron.  I  know  most  young  zealots  are  apt,  through 
ignorance,  inconsideration,  and  pride  of  heart,  to  undertake  what 
they  have  no  proper  qualifications  for ;  and  through  their  impru- 

*  Trumbull's  Connecticut,  vol.  ii.  p.  173. 

f  Testimony  of  the  pastors  of  churches  in  the  province  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  at  their  annual  convention  in  Boston,  May  25,  1743,  pages  6,  7. 

X  Some  of  the  ministers  present  on  that  occasion  signed  this  testimony  and 
advice  as  to  the  substance  merely,  which  Mr.  Prince  informs  us  was  owing 
principally  to  the  clause  above  cited.  Some  of  the  pastors  thought  that  it  was 
not  explicit  enough  against  the  practice  which  it  condemned,  while  others 
thought  it  might  "  be  perverted  to  the  great  infringement  of  Christian  and  hu- 
man liberty."  — Christian  History,  vol.  i.  p.  198. 


100  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

dence  and  enthusiasm  the  church  of  God  suffers.  I  think  all  that 
fear  God  should  rise  and  crush  the  enthusiastic  creature  in  the  egg. 
Dear  brother,  the  times  are  dangerous.  The  churches  in  America 
and  elsewhere  are  in  great  danger  of  enthusiasm  ;  we  need  to  think 
of  the  maxim  prmcipiis  obsta."  *  This  irregularity  was  freely 
condemned  also  by  the  association  of  Connecticut,  the  convention 
of  Massachusetts,  and  the  assembly  of  pastors  in  Boston,  in  the 
documents  already  referred  to.  Yet  it  was  through  the  influence 
of  these  lay  exhorters,  encouraged  by  a  few  such  ministers  as  Da- 
venport, and  Mr.  Park,  of  Westerly,  Rhode  Island,f  that  fanati- 
cism and  false  religion  were  most  effectually  promoted  among  the 
churches. 

This  is  a  formidable  array  of  evils.  Yet  as  the  friends  of 
the  revival  testify  to  their  existence,  no  conscientious  historian  dare 
either  conceal  or  extenuate  them.  There  was  too  little  discrimina- 
tion between  true  and  false  religious  feeling.  There  was  too  much 
encouragement  given  to  outcries,  faintings,  and  bodily  agitations, 
as  probable  evidence  of  the  presence  and  power  of  God.  There 
was,  in  many,  too  much  reliance  on  impulses,  visions,  and  the  pre- 
tended power  of  discerning  spirits.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  cen- 
soriousness,  and  of  a  sinful  disregard  of  ecclesiastical  order.  The 
disastrous  effects  of  these  evils,  the  rapid  spread  of  false  religion, 
the  dishonour  and  decline  of  true  piety,  the  prevalence  of  errone- 
ous doctrines,  the  division  of  congregations,  the  alienation  of  Chris- 
tians, and  the  long  period  of  subsequent  deadness  in  the  church, 
stand  up  as  a  solemn  warning  to  Christians,  and  especially  to 
Christian  ministers  in  all  times  to  come.  It  was  thus,  in  the  strong 
language  of  Edwards,  the  devil  prevailed  against  the  revival.  "  It 
is  by  this  means  that  the  daughter  of  Zion  in  this  land,  now  lies 
in  such  piteous  circumstances,  with  her  garments  rent,  her  face 
disfigured,  her  nakedness  exposed,  her  limbs  broken,  and  weltering 
in  the  blood  of  her  own  wounds,  and  in  nowise  able  to  rise,  and 
this  so  soon  after  her  late  great  joys  and  hopes."  J 

Though  this,  being  true,  should  be  known  and  well  considered, 

*  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  153.  f  See  Gillies,  vol.  ii.  p.  292. 

X  Preface  to  his  Treatise  on  the  Affections,  written  in  1746. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  101 

that  the  guilt  and  danger  of  propagating  false  religion  and  spurious 
excitement  may  be  understood,  yet  we  are  not  to  forget  or  under- 
value the  great  good  which  was  then  accomplished.  In  many 
places  there  was  little  of  these  evils,  especially  in  New  Jersey  and 
Virginia.  Dickinson  and  Davies  successfully  resisted  their  inroads 
within  the  sphere  of  their  influence.  And  in  many  other  places 
the  soundness  of  the  doctrines  taught,  the  experience  detailed,  and 
the  permanent  effects  produced,  abundantly  attest  the  genuineness 
of  the  revival.  To  the  Presbyterian  Church,  particularly,  it  was 
the  commencement  of  a  new  life,  the  vigour  of  which  is  still  felt 
in  all  her  veins. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE     SCHISM,     1741. 

The  act  of  Synod  relating  to  itinerant  preaching,  passed  in  1737.  —  The  act 
relating  to  the  examination  of  candidates,  passed  in  1738.  —  These  acts 
disobeyed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick.  —  That  Presbytery  cen- 
sured by  the  Synod.  —  They  present  their  apology  in  1739.  —  Analysis  of 
that  apology.  —  The  Presbytery  continue  to  disobey  the  Synod.  —  The  pro- 
priety of  their  conduct  considered.  —  The  effects  of  this  controversy  upon 
the  congregations  and  other  presbyteries.  —  The  efforts  made  in  1740  to 
compromise  the  difficulty.  —  Failure  of  these  efforts.  —  Mr.  G.  Tennent  and 
Mr.  Blair  read  before  the  Synod  two  papers  containing  complaints  against 
their  brethren.  —  Mr.  Tennent  preaches  his  sermon  on  the  dangers  of  an 
unconverted  ministry. — Analysis  of  that  sermon.  —  The  complaints  against 
Mr.  Tennent  and  his  friends  for  rash-judging,  and  for  intruding  into  settled 
congregations,  and  promoting  divisions.  —  These  complaints  brought  before 
the  presbyteries. — The  cases  of  Mr.  Alexander  Creaghead  and  of  Mr.  David 
Alexauder  before  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal.  —  The  Synod  meets  in  1741  in 
the  midst  of  these  controversies. — The  case  of  Mr.  Creaghead  taken  up,  and 
leads  to  a  serious  contention. — Mr.  Robert  Cross  reads  a  protest  against  the 
New  Brunswick  brethren  being  allowed  to  sit  as  members  of  Synod,  which 
is  signed  by  twelve  ministers  and  eight  elders.  —  This  protest  throws  the 
Synod  into  confusion,  and  leads  to  the  irregular  exclusion  of  nine  minis- 
ters.—  The  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  and  their  cor- 
respondents immediately  after  the  schism.  —  The  efforts  made  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  1742  to  heal  the  schism ;  similar 
efforts  made  in  1743  and  in  1745. — These  efforts  having  failed,  the  Synod  of 
New  York  formed  in  September,  1745.  —  The  points  of  difference  between 
the  two  parties  considered. — The  nature  and  extent  of  the  opposition  to  the 
revival  examined.  —  How  far  the  parties  differed  as  to  the  importance  of 
learning,  as  to  points  of  doctrine,  and  principles  of  church  government  con- 
sidered.— The  true  cause  of  the  schism  stated. 

In  order  properly  to  understand  the  origin  and  causes  of  the 

schism  which  in  1741  divided  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  will  be 

necessary  briefly  to  recapitulate  some  of  the  facts  recorded  in  the 

third  chapter  of  this  history.    It  may  be  remembered,  that  in  1737 

(102) 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  103 

an  act  was  passed  by  the  Synod,  which  prohibited  the  members  of 
one  presbytery  preaching  to  the  congregations  under  the  care  of 
another  presbytery,  without  a  regular  invitation.  In  the  following 
year  this  rule  was  somewhat  modified,  and  unanimously  re-enacted.* 
It  was  not  the  design  of  this  rule  to  prohibit  itinerant  preaching; 
a  service  which  its  advocates  every  year  commissioned  men  to  per- 
form. It  was  intended  to  prevent  the  irregular  intrusion  of  one 
minister  or  presbytery  upon  the  acknowledged  bounds  of  another. 
Under  ordinary  circumstances,  such  a  rule  would  have  excited  no 
opposition.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  it  was  twice  unani- 
mously adopted.  When,  however,  the  revival  had  fairly  begun, 
and  a  number  of  ministers  had  devoted  themselves  to  preaching 
from  place  to  place,  they  were  unwilling  to  be  trammelled  by  such 
rules,  or  to  abstain  from  preaching  in  a  particular  congregation 
because  "  a  graceless  minister"  or  lukewarm  presbytery  might  take 
offence.  They  urged  that,  under  extraordinary  circumstances,  such 
rules  should  be  laid  aside. 

A  more  serious  difficulty  arose  from  the  passage  of  another  act. 
In  1738,  the  Synod  resolved  that,  in  order  to  prevent  the  admis- 
sion of  uneducated  men  into  the  ministry,  every  candidate  for  the 
sacred  office,  before  he  was  taken  on  trial,  should  be  furnished  with 
a  diploma  of  graduation  from  some  European  or  New  England  col- 
lege, or  with  a  certificate  of  competent  scholarship  from  a  commit- 
tee of  the  Synod.  The  same  year  the  Presbytery  of  New  Bruns- 
wick was  formed.  It  met  for  the  first  time  August  8,  1738,  and 
on  the  same  day  application  was  made  by  Mr.  John  Rowland  to  be 
taken  "  on  trial,  in  order  to  his  being  licensed  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel." "The  presbytery  thereon  entered  on  a  serious  consideration 
of  the  act  of  last  Synod,  appointing  that  young  men  should  be  first 
examined  by  a  commission  of  Synod,  and  obtain  a  testimony  of 
their  approbation,  before  they  are  to  be  taken  on  trials  by  any 
presbytery  belonging  to  the  same ;  and,  after  much  reasoning  on 
the  case,  the  Presbytery  came  to  this  unanimous  conclusion,  viz.  : 
That  they  were  not,  in  point  of  conscience,  restrained  by  said  act 
from  using  the  liberty  and  power  which  presbyteries  have  all  along 

*  Part  First  of  this  History,  Chapter  III.  p.  207. 


104  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

hitherto  enjoyed ;  but  that  it  was  their  duty  to  take  the  said  Mr. 
Rowland  upon  trial,  for  which  conclusion  they  conceive  they  have 
several  weighty  and  sufficient  reasons."*  The  Presbytery,  accord- 
ingly, entered  upon  his  examination,  and  assigned  him  the  usual 
exercises  to  present  at  their  next  meeting.  On  the  7th  of  the  fol- 
lowing September,  the  Presbytery  having  sustained  his  examina- 
tion, and  heard  him  profess  "  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
to  be  the  confession  of  his  faith,"  granted  him  "  free  license  and 
liberty  to  preach  the  gospel  of  Christ."f 

The  following  year,  1739,  when  the  records  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Brunswick  came  to  be  reviewed  by  the  Synod,  that  body 
declared  the  licensing  of  Mr.  Rowland  "  to  be  very  disorderly, 
and  admonished  the  said  Presbytery  to  avoid  such  divisive  courses 
for  the  future ;  and  determined  not  to  admit  the  said  Mr.  Rowland 
to  be  a  preacher  of  the  gospel  within  our  bounds,  nor  to  encourage 
any  of  our  people  to  accept  him,  until  he  submit  to  such  examina- 
tions as  were  appointed  by  this  Synod  for  those  that  have  had  a 
private  education.  This  overture,"  it  is  added,  "  was  carried  in 
the  affirmative  by  a  great  majority. "| 

The  Presbytery  seem  to  have  anticipated  this  result,  as  they 
came  prepared  with  their  "  Apology  for  dissenting  from  two  acts 
or  new  religious  laws  passed  at  the  last  session  of  the  Synod. "§ 
This  was  a  long  argumentative  paper,  containing  not  merely  the 
specific  objections  of  its  authors  against  the  two  acts  in  question, 
but  a  formal  statement  of  their  principles  as  to  church  govern- 
ment. They  premise,  therefore,  1.  That  there  is  a  parity  or 
equality  of  power  among  gospel  ministers.  2.  That  a  presbytery, 
or  the  smallest  association  of  ministers,  has  power  from  Christ  to 
ordain.  3.  That  consequently  they  have  authority  to  judge  of  the 
qualifications  of  candidates  for  ordination.  In  the  further  exposi- 
tion of  their  sentiments,  they  state,  1.  That  presbyteries  are  bound 
to  inquire  into  the  fitness  of  candidates  for  the  sacred  office,  and 

*  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  pp.  1  and  2. 
f  Ibid.  p.  3.  X  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  p.  68. 

\  This  apology  was  presented  to  the  Synod,  May  23,  1739,  signed  by  Gilbert 
Tennent,  Eleazar  Wales,  William  Tennent,  Jun.,  and  Samuel  Blair. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  105 

admit  or  refuse  them  according  to  their  best  judgment.  2.  That 
they  have  power  to  deny  church  communion  to  such  as  by  plain 
scriptural  directions  are  unqualified  for  it.  3.  In  cases  of  con- 
science, or  in  cases  regularly  brought  before  them  from  particular 
congregations,  they  ought  to  give  their  deliberate  judgment,  with 
their  best  counsel  and  advice.  4.  They  have  liberty  to  agree 
among  themselves  upon  such  things  as  appear  to  have  a  good  ten- 
dency to  advance  religion,  and  to  engage  themselves  voluntarily  to 
the  observance  of  these  things,  provided  they  do  not  encroach  upon 
the  liberties  of  the  people,  nor  pretend  to  bind  their  dissenting 
members  to  observe  their  agreements,  who  may  have  a  different 
view  and  apprehension  of  them.  5.  That  it  is  reasonable  and  use- 
ful that  synods  consisting  of  several  presbyteries  meet  together, 
when  matters  may  be  brought  by  appeal  or  reference  from  particu- 
lar presbyteries,  in  order  to  obtain  the  judgment  and  sentiments 
of  a  greater  number  upon  them.  And  accordingly,  it  is  no  doubt 
their  duty  to  take  such  cases  under  their  consideration,  and  to  give 
their  best  advice  on  them  ;  but  we  think  that  they  should  not  pro- 
ceed with  any  further  authority,  except  in  such  cases  wherein  God 
has  given  particular  obvious  directions  in  his  word,  which  are  to  be 
exactly  followed;  and  even  then  they  do  no  more  than  show  from 
Scripture,  what  are  the  mind  and  direction  of  God  in  such  cases, 
and  declare  their  own  resolution  to  act  according  thereto,  as  far  as 
they  are  concerned.* 

The  rule  relating  to  itinerants,  as  it  then  stood,  forbade  any  min- 
ister belonging  to  one  presbytery  to  preach  to  a  congregation  be- 
longing to  another,  if  warned  by  a  member  of  the  latter  presby- 
tery that  his  preaching  would  be  likely  to  cause  division.  This 
prohibition  was  to  operate  only  until  the  presbytery  to  which  the 
congregation  belonged,  could  consider  the  case  and  give  the  itine- 
rant liberty  to  preach  or  not,  as  they  saw  fit.  To  this  rule  the 
authors  of  this  apology  objected,  that  it  had  no  foundation  in 
Scripture ;  that  it  was  at  variance  with  the  command  which  re- 
quired ministers  to  be  instant  in  season  and  out  of  season  ;  that  it 
deprived  ministers  and  people  of  privileges  which  Christ  had  given 

*  Apology,  pp.  28,  29. 


106  PRESBYTERIAN-   CnUKCH 

them  ;  that  the  exercise  of  the  ministerial  office  might  be  suspended 
for  a  time  by  one  man,  and  that  not  for  any  fault ;  that  any  min- 
ister by  the  aforesaid  act  is  invested  with  a  power  to  lord  it  over 
his  brethren,  and  to  inflict  upon  him  the  most  grievous  church  cen- 
sures, and  that  upon  mere  conjecture ;  and  finally  that  it  was  in- 
consistent with  the  right  which  belonged  to  ruling  elders  to  invite 
a  regular  member  of  another  presbytery  to  preach  among  them  one 
Sabbath  on  his  travels.  This  remonstrance  led  to  a  modification 
of  the  rule,  which  was  so  altered  as  to  direct  that  complaint  should 
be  made  to  the  presbytery,  in  case  any  one  thought  the  preaching 
of  the  stranger  productive  of  evil,  and  that  it  should  be  left  to  the 
presbytery  to  decide  whether  he  should  continue  to  preach.  In 
this  form  it  passed  unanimously.  These  brethren,  however,  were 
no  better  satisfied  than  before,  and  the  next  year  the  rule  was  re- 
pealed.* 

To  the  rule  relating  to  the  examination  of  candidates,  they  ob- 
jected, 1.  That  it  was  unscriptural ;  there  being  no  direction  in 
the  Scriptures,  that  a  candidate  should  be  examined  by  a  committee 
of  synod,  before  being  examined  by  a  presbytery.  2.  That  it  was 
uncharitable,  inasmuch  as  it  supposed  insufficiency  or  unfaithful- 
ness in  the  presbyteries.  3.  That  it  was  anti-scriptural,  as  it  hin- 
dered or  impaired  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  presbyteries  in  the 
examination  of  students,  a  duty  enjoined  upon  them  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. 4.  That  it  was  unjust,  as  it  impaired  a  power  given  by 
Christ,  against  the  will  and  conscience  of  its  possessors.  5.  That 
it  was  unnecessary  ;  presbyteries  having  tried  young  men  ever  since 
the  synod  was  formed.  6.  That  it  was  anti-presbyterial,  and  by 
taking  from  presbyteries  their  proper  business,  tended  to  make 
them  useless. 

Not  satisfied  with  these  specific  objections,  they  attacked  the 
general  principle  on  which,  as  they  supposed,  these  rules  were 
founded.  They  say,  "  We  humbly  conceive  that  the  aforesaid  acts, 
in  their  present  form,  are  founded  upon  a  false  hypothesis  namely, 
that  a  majority  of  synods  or  other  church  judicatories  have  a 
power  committed  to  them  from  Christ  to  make  new  rules,  acts,  or 
*  Chapter  III.  p.  207. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  107 

canons  about  religious  matters,  on  this  ground,  viz. :  That  they 
judge  them  to  be  either  not  against  or  agreeable  to  the  general 
directions  of  the  word,  and  serviceable  to  religion,  which  shall  be 
binding  on  those  who  conscientiously  dissent  therefrom,  on  certain 
penalties,  which  are  to  be  inflicted  upon  those  who  judge  the  acts 
they  enforce  to  be  contrary  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  prejudicial 
to  the  interest  of  his  kingdom.  This  is,  in  brief,  a  legislative,  or 
law-making  power  in  religious  matters,  and  this  we  do  utterly  dis- 
claim and  renounce." 

Against  any  such  power  as  that  here  described,  they  argued,  1. 
That  Christ  has  not  given  such  authority  to  church  judicatories,  or 
required  his  people  to  submit  to  it.  2.  It  is  an  invasion  of  Christ's 
kingly  office.  3.  It  involves  a  reflection  on  the  perfection  of  the 
Scriptures,  as  though  they  did  not  contain  a  sufficient  rule  of  duty. 
4.  It  is  inconsistent  with  Christian  liberty.  5.  It  is  incompatible 
with  the  rights  of  conscience  and  of  private  judgment.  6.  This 
power  supposes  either  that  the  church  is  infallible,  or  that  she  can 
make  what  is  wrong  in  itself,  right  by  commanding  it.  7.  If  such 
a  power  belongs  to  the  church,  then  the  reformation  and  dissent 
from  the  Church  of  England  must  be  condemned.  8.  Such  reli- 
gious laws  are  superstitious  and  uncharitable.  9.  The  power  com- 
plained of  would  open  a  door  for  an  intolerable  bondage,  and  ex- 
pose men  to  be  persecuted  for  conscience'  sake.* 

It  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  that  as  to  this  latter  point,  viz. :  the 
power  to  make  laws  to  bind  the  conscience,  there  was  no  dispute 
between  the  two  parties.  Such  a  power  was  never  claimed  by  any 
presbyterian.  Still  this  apology  greatly  widened  the  opening 
breach.  It  made  the  difficulty,  to  all  appearance,  one  of  principle 
instead  of  detail.  It  was  no  longer  a  question,  whether  a  particu- 
lar rule  was  just,  but  whether  a  church  judicatory  had,  on  any  oc- 
casion,  the   right  to   bind  its   dissenting   members.      This   paper 

*  Each  of  these  arguments  is  expanded  to  a  considerable  length  in  the 
Apology,  which  is  printed  in  full  as  an  Appendix  to  Remarks  on  the  Protes- 
tation, presented  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  June  1,  1741,  by  Gilbert  Ten- 
nent.  Mr.  Thompson,  in  his  work  on  the  Government  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
has  extracted  the  greater  part  of  the  Apology. 


108  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

seemed  to  allow,  even  in  cases  of  appeal,  nothing  beyond  advisory 
power  either  to  synods  or  presbyteries.  It  was  therefore  regarded 
as  a  formal  renunciation  on  the  part  of  its  authors,  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  presbyterianism.  It  is  true,  they  did  not  so 
intend  it,  yet  it  was  so  understood,  and  that  according  to  its  moist 
obvious  meaning.  The  unfortunate  character  of  this  apology  was 
no  doubt  due  to  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent,  whose  impress  it  very  dis- 
tinctly bears.  As  a  controversialist  he  had  two  prominent  charac- 
teristics. The  one  was  the  habit,  on  all  occasions,  of  recurring  to 
first  principles.  He  was  not  contented  to  object  to  the  thing  in 
debate,  but  was  sure  to  attack  the  hypothesis,  as  he  termed  it,  on 
which  it  was  founded.  This  habit  often  got  him  into  difficulty ;  for 
his  mind,  though  vigorous  and  on  many  subjects  v,e\\  furnished,  was 
neither  discriminating  nor  logical.  Hence,  in  the  statement  of  his 
principles,  he  rarely  attended  to  those  qualifications  which  he  him- 
self soon  found  to  be  necessary.  His  controversial  writings,  there- 
fore, are  full  of  inconsistencies  and  contradictions,  so  that  his  au- 
thority may  be  fairly  quoted  on  either  side  of  almost  every  ques- 
tion in  the  discussion  of  which  he  was  engaged.  Another  of  his 
characteristics  was  a  fondness  for  exaggeration.  Every  thing  was 
stated  in  extremes.  This  was  remarked  by  his  opponents,  who 
complained  that  he  could  not  say  a  thing  was  uncharitable,  but  he 
must  needs  call  it  "a  bloody,  murderous  charity."  Thus  in  the 
present  case,  he  could  not  deny  that  church  judicatories  could  bind 
him  to  what  he  considered  unscriptural  and  sinful,  without  appear- 
ing to  deny  that  they  could  bind  him  to  any  thing. 

The  opposition  of  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  led  to  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  rule  respecting  the  examination  of  candidates.  In- 
stead of  this  examination  being  conducted  by  a  committee,  it  was 
determined  that  it  should  be  performed  by  the  Synod  itself  or  its 
commission.  As  thus  modified  it  was  adopted  by  a  great  majority. 
The  dissentients  among  the  ministers,  were  William  Tennent,  Sen'r, 
Gilbert  Tennent,  William  Tennent,  Jun'r,  Charles  Tennent,  Sam- 
uel Blair,  and  Eleazar  Wales.*  As  Mr.  G.  Tennent  declared 
that  he  believed  the  rule  was  designed  to  operate  against  his  fa- 

*  See  chap.  iii.  p.  210. 


I  IT  THE    UNITED     STATES.  109 

ther's  schools,  his  opponents  retorted  that  the  opposition  to  it  wag 
a  mere  family  concern.  Of  the  six  dissenting  or  protesting  bre- 
thren, as  they  were  commonly  called,  four  were  Tennents,  the  fifth 
a  pupil  and  friend,  and  the  sixth  a  co-presbytery  and  neighbour. 
Whatever  unworthy  motive  may,  on  either  side,  have  mingled  with 
better  feelings,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  majority,  which  included 
almost  the  whole  Synod,  were  influenced  in  the  adoption  of  the 
rule  in  question,  by  a  sincere  desire  to  secure  an  adequately  edu- 
cated ministry,  and  the  minority  by  an  equally  conscientious  belief, 
that  the  operation  of  the  rule  would  be  inimical  to  the  progress  of 
religion  in  the  church. 

The  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  having  taken  its  stand,  con- 
tinued to  disregard  the  above-mentioned  rule.  In  the  course  of 
the  year  1739,  they  ordained  Mr.  Rowland  sine  titulo*  which  was 
then  a  very  uncommon  thing;  and  licensed  Mr.  McCrea.f  In 
1740  they  licensed  Mr.  William  RobinsonJ  and  Mr.  Samuel  Fin- 
ley  ;§  and  in  no  one  of  these  cases  did  they  comply  with  the  requi- 
sition of  Synod. 

In  order  to  a  proper  understanding  of  this  period  of  our  history, 
it  is  obviously  important  to  have  a  clear  idea  of  the  merits  of  the 
controversy  between  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  and  the  other 
members  of  the  Synod.  Was  that  Presbytery  justifiable  in  disre- 
garding the  rule  respecting  the  examination  of  candidates  ?  It 
will  be  seen  that  all  their  objections  to  the  rule  in  question,  as  pre- 
sented in  their  apology,  resolve  themselves  into  one,  viz. :  That 
since  Christ  has  given  to  presbyteries  the  power  of  ordination,  the 
rule  was  an  unwarrantable  interference  with  their  privileges.  To 
call  this  interference,  under  so  many  distinct  heads,  anti-scriptural, 
uncharitable,  unjust,  and  anti-presbyterial,  does  not  make  so  many 
separate  arguments.  The  single  question  is,  was  there  any  un- 
warrantable interference,  on  the  part  of  the  Synod,  with  the  rights 
of  the  presbyteries  ?  Mr.  Tennent  disposes  of  this  question  in  a 
very  summary  manner.     He  thought  the  case  was  settled  by  say- 

*  Minutes  of  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  p.  12.  f  Ibid.  p.  13. 

%  Ibid.  p.  16.  g  Ibid.  p.  20. 


110  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ing  that,  as  the  presbyteries  had  the  right  to  ordain,  this  involved 
of  necessity  the  right  to  judge  for  themselves  of  the  qualifications 
of  the  candidate.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  overlooked  the 
obvious  consideration,  that  the  powers  of  a  presbytery  acting  by 
itself,  are  necessarily  and  justly  limited,  when  it  comes  to  form 
one  body  with  other  presbyteries.  The  question  was  not,  what  a 
presbytery  considered  in  itself  might  do,  but  what  a  presbytery 
making  a  constituent  part  of  a  whole  church  might  properly  do. 
Among  Episcopalians  the  right  of  ordination  is  held  to  belong  to 
bishops,  and  that  by  divine  right.  Yet  no  bishop  can  spurn  the 
canons  of  his  church,  which  prescribe  the  qualifications  of  priests 
or  deacons,  as  anti-scriptural,  uncharitable,  and  unjust,  because 
they  interfere  with  the  free  exercise  of  his  power  to  ordain.  If 
he  chooses  to  act  with  other  bishops,  and  form  a  part  of  an  ex- 
tended church,  he  must  exercise  his  power  in  submission  to  general 
agreements,  and  all  complaints  of  limiting  his  authority  are  unrea- 
sonable. If  he  wishes  to  be  untrammelled,  he  must  act  by  him- 
self. The  case  is  much  stronger  with  regard  to  presbyteries ;  be- 
cause when  a  man  is  ordained  in  our  church,  he  becomes  not  merely 
a  member  of  presbytery,  but  of  the  synod  also.  He  is  authorized 
to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  his  brethren ;  he  is  one  of  those  to 
whom  they  promise  subjection  in  the  Lord ;  he  is  entitled  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  their  character,  orthodoxy,  and  conduct.  Every 
member  of  the  synod,  therefore,  has  a  right  to  know  that  he  is 
properly  qualified  for  such  an  office.  If  to  secure  this  object,  the 
synod  agreed  that  all  who  are  admitted  to  this  sacred  trust  should 
have  certain  qualifications ;  all  the  members  are  bound  to  submit 
or  to  leave  the  body.  It  would  be  a  strange  usurpation  to  allow  a 
small  minority  to  force  into  membership  and  authority,  men  whom 
two-thirds  or  four-fifths  of  the  body  were  unwilling  to  receive. 
Yet  this  was  precisely  what  Mr.  Tennent  and  his  associates  insisted 
upon.  They  claimed  the  right  of  making  men  members  of  the  Synod, 
and  thus  judges  of  their  brethren,  to  whom  they  were  unwilling  to 
be  subject.  The  Synod  had  agreed  that  none  but  graduates  of  col- 
leges, or  those  who  had  an  equivalent  education,  should  be  allowed 
to  sit  as  members.     They  believed  such  an  education  requisite  in 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  Ill 

order  to  the  proper  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  ministry  and  of 
synodical  membership.  Those  who  thought  differently,  had  a  right 
to  oppose  the  adoption  of  the  rule ;  and  if  they  were  unable  with 
a  good  conscience  to  submit  to  it,  they  had  a  right  to  withdraw  and 
to  act  on  their  own  plan ;  but  they  assuredly  had  no  right  to  insist 
that  their  brethren  should  admit  to  membership,  and  submit  to 
their  authority,  men  whom  they  did  not  think  qualified,  or  who 
refused  to  give  the  stipulated  evidence  of  their  competency.  This 
would  be  to  make  the  minority  rule  the  majority.  It  was  in  this 
light  the  matter  presented  itself  to  Mr.  Tennent's  opponents. 
They  therefore  accused  him  of  a  determination  to  domineer  over 
his  brethren,  and  to  have  his  own  way  in  matters  which  concerned 
the  whole  Synod  as  much  as  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick. 
The  unreasonableness  of  this  course  was  so  obvious,  that  the  Ten- 
nents  stood  almost  alone  in  their  opposition.  This  is  not  merely 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  rule  respecting  candidates  was 
adopted  three  times  by  "a  great  majority;"  but  it  is  distinctly 
stated  that  the  New  York  Presbytery,  and  especially  Messrs.  Dick- 
inson, Pierson,  and  Pemberton,  sided  with  the  majority  on  all  these 
questions.* 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  at  this  period,  the  synod  was  not 
only  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  church,  but  it  included  all  the 
presbyteries.  Its  determinations  or  acts,  therefore,  were  of  the 
same  nature  with  our  constitutional  rules  when  adopted  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  presbyteries.  They  were  the  expression  of  the  will 
of  the  whole  church.  In  the  particular  case  under  consideration, 
all  the  presbyteries,  without  an  exception,  sanctioned  the  rule  in 
question,  because  it  was  adopted  before  the  organization  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick.  And  when  that  presbytery  ob- 
jected, there  were  four  presbyteries  for  the  rule  and  one  against 
it.  The  conduct  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  therefore, 
was  precisely  analogous  to  that  of  the  Cumberland  Presbytery,  at 
a  later  period  of  our  history,  who  refused  to  comply  with  the  con- 

*  This  is  stated  in  the  Refutation  of  Mr.  Tennent's  Remarks  on  the  Pro- 
test, p.  13.  And  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  iii.  p.  16. 
It  is  also  distinctly  referred  to  by  Mr.  Tennent  himself  in  the  Examiner  Ex- 
amined, p.  105. 


112  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

stitutional  provisions  as  to  the  qualifications  of  candidates :  or  to 
that  of  any  presbytery  who  should  insist  on  licensing  and  ordain- 
ing men  destitute  of  a  knowledge  of  Latin,  Greek,  or  Hebrew,  or 
such  as  refused  to  adopt  the  Westminster  Confession.  This  may 
indeed  often  happen,  but  when  it  does  occur  it  is  an  obvious  breach 
of  faith  ;  it  is  a  violation  of  the  compact  which  the  presbyteries 
have  bound  themselves  to  observe.  And  when  any  presbytery 
ordains  any  man  who  has  not  the  constitutional  qualifications  as 
to  learning,  orthodoxy,  or  experimental  religion,  a  positive  and 
grievous  wrong  is  inflicted  on  all  the  other  presbyteries. 

It  will  hardly  be  denied  that  any  number  of  presbyteries  have  a 
right  to  meet  together  and  fix  their  terms  of  communion ;  to  agree 
upon  the  rules  to  be  observed  in  admitting  men  to  the  ministry,  and 
thus  investing  them  with  a  joint  authority  over  all  the  members  of 
the  body.  This  is  a  right  exercised  by  every  church  in  the  world. 
The  Episcopalians  have  their  canons ;  the  Methodists  their  book 
of  discipline ;  and  even  the  Congregationalists  their  Cambridge 
and  Saybrook  Platforms.  It  was,  therefore,  no  unusual  or  unrea- 
sonable proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  Synod,  embracing  all  the 
presbyteries  in  connection  with  the  church,  to  agree  on  the  terms 
on  which  men  should  be  admitted  to  the  ministry.  They  had  exer- 
cised this  power  before,  and  they  continued  to  exercise  it  after- 
wards. Neither  Mr.  Tennent  nor  any  of  his  associates  objected  to 
the  act  of  1729,  requiring  the  presbyteries  to  make  the  adoption  of 
the  Westminster  Confession  a  preliminary  to  ordination.  Yet  the 
presbyteries  had  as  much  reason  to  complain  of  that  act,  as  en- 
croaching on  their  prerogative  to  judge  of  the  orthodoxy  of  their 
candidates,  as  they  had  to  complain  of  the  act  of  1738,  as  inter- 
fering with  the  right  to  judge  of  their  literary  qualifications.  It 
is  a  decisive  proof  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  latter  rule  which 
transcended  the  acknowledged  power  of  the  Synod,  that  when  the 
Synod  of  New  York  was  formed  in  1745,  it  was  made  one  of  their 
fundamental  articles  of  agreement,  that  all  determinations  of  the 
Synod  should  be  obeyed,  whenever  the  body  thought  fit  to  insist 
upon  them  as  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  the  church;  and  that 
those  who  could  not  conscientiously  submit,  should  peaceably  with- 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  113 

draw.  A  similar  provision  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  two 
Synods  at  the  time  of  their  union  in  1758.  What  is  still  more  to 
the  point,  in  th  eway  of  acknowledgment,  is  that,  at  the  first  confer- 
ence between  the  commissions  of  the  two  Synods  with  a  view  to  the 
union,  held  in  1749,  this  very  contested  rule  was  proposed  for  adop- 
tion as  one  of  the  conditions,  and  assented  to  by  every  commissioner 
from  the  Synod  of  New  York  ;  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  alone  objecting 
to  synodical  examination  of  candidates,  though  he  assented  to  their 
being  required  to  produce  a  college  diploma.*  With  this  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia  were  perfectly  satisfied. 

There  was,  therefore,  no  more  interference  with  the  rights  of  pres- 
byteries in  this  case,  than  must  ever  take  place,  when  several  pres- 
byteries unite  and  agree  on  what  terms  they  will  constitute  one 
body.  There  was  no  greater  interference  than  had  been  exercised 
by  the  Synod  on  previous  occasions,  or  than  takes  place  under  our 
present  constitution,  which  in  so  many  ways  limits  the  presbyteries 
in  the  exercise  of  their  prerogatives. 

This  rule,  however,  has  been  objected  to  on  another  ground.  It 
has  been  said  that  it  was  founded  on  the  unwarrantable  assumption 
on  the  part  of  the  S}Tnod  of  the  right  to  exercise  presbyterial 
powers.  To  this  two  answers  may  be  given.  In  the  first  place, 
the  right  of  the  Synod  to  exercise  such  powers  was  then  univer- 
sally recognized.  The  Synod  was  regarded  as  a  larger  presbytery, 
and  possessed  of  presbyterial  prerogatives.  There  was  scarcely 
one  of  the  functions  of  a  presbytery  which  it  did  not  exercise, 
whenever  occasion  called  for  it.  It  received,  installed,  and  ordained 
men  without  the  slightest  objection  from  any  quarter.  This  was 
done  by  the  old  Synod  before  the  schism,  by  each  of  the  two  Synods 
during  the  separation,  and  by  the  united  Synod  after  the  union. 
However  inconsistent  this  may  be  with  our  present  views  and 
habits,  it  is  evident  that  the  objection  just  stated  could  not  have 
been  consistent^  urged  at  that  time  by  any  party  in  the  church. 
In  the  second  place,  this  examination  of  candidates  was  not  con- 
sidered a  presbyterial  act.  It  was  not  performed  by  the  Synod  in 
its  character  of  a  presbytery,  but  as  the  substitute  of  the  officers 

*  Minutes  of  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  iii.  p.  53. 
VOL.  II. — 8 


114  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

of  a  college.  After  this  synodical  examination,  the  candidate  waa 
examined  by  his  presbytery,  just  as  he  was  after  his  reception  of  a 
college  diploma.  He  might  be  as  freely  rejected,  if  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  presbytery  incompetent,  his  synodical  certificate  not- 
withstanding, as  he  could  be  notwithstanding  his  diploma.  The 
Synod  did  not  propose  to  take  the  examination  of  candidates  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbyteries,  but  simply  to  provide  something 
which  should  have  the  same  general  significance  and  value  for  the 
whole  church,  that  the  evidence  of  graduation  in  a  regular  college 
possessed.  Hence  the  defenders  of  the  rule  said,  "  The  debate  is 
neither  in  whole  nor  in  part,  who  are  intrusted  with  the  power  of 
ordination  ;  but  whether  the  right  of  choosing  professors  for  col- 
leges, or  tutors  for  academies,  belongs  to  the  higher  or  lower  church 
judicatures  ;  and  in  case  there  be  no  professors,  to  take  the  regular 
examination  of  scholars  privately  educated,  whether  the  right  of 
choosing  examiners  to  supply  the  room,  or  want  of  professors  in 
examining  scholars  in  the  useful  parts  of  academical  learning, 
should  be  entrusted  to  synods  or  presbyteries."* 

We  cannot  but  think,  therefore,  that  the  New  Brunswick  Pres- 
bytery, at  least  at  this  stage  of  the  controversy,  were  in  the  wrong. 
The  Synod  laid  claim  to  no  power  either  unreasonable  in  itself,  or 
inconsistent  with  the  uniform  practice  and  acknowledged  constitu- 
tion of  the  church,  as  it  then  existed.  The  claim  to  inordinate 
power  was  all  on  the  other  side.  It  was  a  claim  of  a  right  to  act 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  will  of  a  society  regularly  expressed, 
and  yet  to  continue  a  member  of  it.  It  was  in  short  a  claim  of 
the  minority  to  govern  the  majority. 

The  controversy  on  this  subject  was  not  confined  to  the  floor  of 
the  Synod ;  it  soon  produced  difficulties  in  the  congregations  and 
presbyteries.  In  March,  1738,  a  portion  of  the  people  of  Maiden- 
head and  Hopewell,  dissatisfied  with  the  preaching  of  Mr.  Guild, 
who  was  not  at  that  time  settled  as  their  pastor,  applied  to  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  for  liberty  to  hear  some  other  candi- 
date.    This  permission  was  readily  granted. f     In  the  fall  of  the 

*  Refutation  of  Mr.  Tennent's  Remarks,  p.  59. 
t  Minutes  of  Presbyfcerj  of  Philadelphia,  p.  52. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  115 

same  year  they  applied  to  the  newly-erected  presbytery  of  New 
Brunswick,  "  informing  them  they  had  liberty  granted  them  by 
their  presbytery  to  invite  and  receive  any  regular  candidate  from 
any  other  parts  to  preach  among  them,  which  also  appeared  by  a 
writing  from  Mr.  Andrews,  which  they  adduced,  and  supplicating 
that  Mr.  Rowland  might  come  among  them;"  and  the  Presbytery 
"granted  him  liberty  of  so  doing."*  As  soon  as  this  fact  came  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  they  entered  on 
their  records  the  following  minute :  "  The  Presbytery  being  in- 
formed that  Mr.  Rowland  has  not  complied  with  the  order  of  the 
last  Synod,  relating  to  the  examination  of  students  by  a  committee 
of  Synod  appointed  for  that  end ;  that  he  was  hastily  passed  over 
in  his  trials  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  said  order  of  Synod  ;  and  that  Mr.  Rowland  had  inform- 
ation from  Mr.  Cowell  of  the  irregularity  of  his  licensing,  advising 
him  not  to  preach  at  Hopewell  at  the  said  time  ;  and  he  not  attend- 
ing Presbytery,  although  he  knew  of  this  time  of  its  meeting ;  upon 
which  consideration,  the  Presbytery  unanimously  concluded  they 
cannot  accept  of  Mr.  Rowland  as  an  orderly  licensed  preacher,  nor 
approve  of  his  preaching  any  more  among  the  said  people  of  Maid- 
enhead or  Hopewell,  or  in  any  other  of  the  vacancies  within  our 
bounds,  until  his  way  be  cleared  by  complying  with  the  order  of 
Synod  aforesaid. "f  This  prohibition  had  no  effect  upon  the  dis- 
satisfied portion  of  the  people,  nor  upon  Mr.  Rowland,  who  con- 
tinued to  preach  with  the  full  consent  of  his  own  Presbytery,  as 
though  it  had  not  been  made. 

In  order  to  free  themselves  from  restraint  on  this  subject,  the 
people  applied  to  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  to  be  formed 
into  a  distinct  congregation.  This  the  Presbytery  agreed  to  do 
upon  condition  that,  in  case  they  could  not  agree  with  the  other 
portion  of  the  congregation  as  to  the  site  of  the  new  place  of  wor- 
ship, that  matter  should  be  referred  to  the  decision  of  the  Presby- 

*  Minutes  of  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  p.  3. 

f  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  p.  57.  There  were  present  at 
this  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  Messrs.  Robert  Cross,  Richard  Treat,  Hugh 
Carlisle,  David  Cowell,  and  Jedediah  Andrews. 


1 1 G  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

t'-rv.  To  this  the  people  assented,  declaring  "that  they  acknow- 
ledged the  authority  of  the  Presbytery,  and  would  submit  to  its 
determination."  They  were  accordingly  constituted  a  church  by 
themselves,  whereupon  they  immediately  requested  to  be  allowed  to 
join  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick.  To  this  the  Presbytery 
of  course  replied,  that  they  must  first  fulfil  the  engagements  into 
which  they  had  just  entered.*  Of  this  decision  the  people  com- 
plained to  the  Synod  in  1739,  who  "judged  that  the  people  had 
behaved  with  great  indecency  towards  their  Presbytery,  by  their 
unmannerly  reflections  and  unjust  aspersions,  both  upon  the  Synod 
and  Presbytery,  and  that  they  had  acted  very  disorderly  in  approv- 
ing Mr.  Rowland  as  a  preacher  among  them,  when  they  were  ad- 
vised by  the  Presbytery  that  he  was  not  to  be  esteemed  and  approved 
as  an  orderly  candidate  of  the  ministry.  And  the  Synod,"  it  is 
added,  "  do  wholly  disallow  the  said  complainants  being  erected 
into  a  new  congregation  until  they  do  first  submit  to  the  determi- 
nation of  the  place  for  erecting  a  new  meeting-house  to  their  Pres- 
bytery, as  was  formerly  agreed  upon  as  a  condition  of  their  being 
a  separate  congregation.  This  overture  was  approved  by  a  great 
majority.  And  it  is  further  ordered  by  the  Synod,  that  when  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  meet  at  Maidenhead  and  Hopewell,  to 
fix  the  place  of  a  new  meeting-house,  they  shall  call  the  follow- 
ing correspondents :  Messrs.  John  Pierson,  John  Nutman,  Samuel 
Blair,  Nathaniel  Hubbell,  and  Eleazar  Wales,  "f  There  is  evidence 
in  this  decision  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Synod  to  have  full 
justice  done  the  complainants  ;  as  all  these  correspondents  were 
members  of  the  Presbyteries  of  New  Brunswick  and  New  York. 
A  further  proof  that  there  was  no  disposition  to  thwart  the  reason- 
able wishes  of  the  people  as  to  their  ecclesiastical  connections,  is 
found  in  the  fact  that,  in  the  following  year,  the  request  of  the  two 
congregations  of  Newtown  and  Tinicum,  to  be  set  off  from  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  to  that  of  New  Brunswick,  was  "  readily 
granted."|  The  decision  of  the  Synod  respecting  the  congrega- 
tion of  Hopewell  produced  no  effect.     The  people,  Mr.  Rowland, 

*  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  pp.  65  and  60. 

f  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  p.  68.  %  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  72. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  117 

and  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  all  disregarded  it.  Here, 
again,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  Brunswick  brethren  were 
in  the  wrong.  The  congregation  of  Hopewell  was  not  within  their 
bounds ;  the  Presbytery  to  which  the  people  belonged,  and  whose 
authority  they  formally  acknowledged,  disapproved  of  their  employ- 
ing Mr.  Rowland ;  the  highest  judicatory  to  which  they  appealed 
confirmed  this  decision  ;  and  yet  the  Brunswick  Presbytery  went 
on  as  though  no  such  decision  had  been  made,  and  as  though  the 
congregation  was  regularly  under  their  care.  It  was  not  that  these 
brethren  denied  the  authority  of  the  Presbytery  or  Synod,  for  they 
uniformly  acknowledged  and  exercised  this  authority ;  but  it  was 
that,  in  extraordinary  cases,  ecclesiastical  order  may  be  safely  dis- 
regarded ;  or,  in  other  words,  as  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia 
was  indifferent  to  the  spiritual  interests  of  their  people,  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Brunswick  was  authorized  to  take  the  charge  off 
their  hands.*  In  thus  assuming  the  incompetency  or  unfaithfulness 
of  their  brethren,  and  acting  as  though  they  had  forfeited  their 
usual  rights  as  ministers  or  judicatories,  they  unavoidably  occa- 
sioned alienation  and  contention. 

The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  had  another  difficulty  about  Mr. 
Rowland.  When  met  at  Neshaininy,  September,  1739,  a  complaint 
was  brought  before  them  by  some  members  of  that  congregation 
against  their  pastor,  the  Rev.  William  Tennent,  senior,  for  having 
invited  Mr.  Rowland  to  preach  for  him.  "  Upon  which  Mr.  Ten- 
nent was  desired  to  say  what  he  thought  proper  with  relation  to 
his  conduct  therein,  which  he  accordingly  did,  and  acknowledged 
that  he  did  invite  Mr.  Rowland,  as  before  mentioned,  and  withal 
justified  the  action,  and  disclaiming  the  authority  of  the  Presby- 
tery to  take  cognisance  of  the  matter,  he  contemptuously  withdrew. 
After  which  the  Presbytery  had  much  discourse  with  the  people 
who  had  joined  with  Mr.  Tennent  in  the  aforementioned  action, 
admonishing   them  of  the   irregularity  of  the   said   conduct,   and 

*  Mr.  Tennent  says  that  Mr.  Rowland  went  to  the  people  of  Hopewell, 
"  not  out  of  contempt  (for  the  Presbytery  or  Synod)  but  conscience  towards 
God,  in  order  to  relieve  a  pious,  opposed,  and  oppressed  people."  —  Examiner 
Examined,  p.  127. 


118  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

exhorting  them  not  to  encourage  or  consent  to  any  like  conduct 
for  the  future.  They  came  then  to  consider  what  to  do  with  regard 
to  Mr.  Tennent  in  this  affair,  and  concluded  they  could  not  do  less 
than  condemn  said  conduct  of  Mr.  Tennent,  in  inviting  Mr.  Row- 
land to  preach  as  aforesaid,  as  irregular  and  disorderly,  and  espe- 
cially when  aggravated  by  justifying  the  said  action,  and  indecently 
withdrawing  from  the  Presbytery."* 

The  opposition  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  to  the  two 
acts  of  Synod,  relating,  the  one  to  itinerant  preaching,  and  the 
other  to  the  examination  of  candidates,  had  produced  so  much 
uneasiness  in  the  church,  that  when  the  Synod  met  in  1740,  a 
general  anxiety  wTas  felt  to  have  the  difficulty  arranged.  The  former 
of  these  two  acts  wras  therefore  repealed ;  and  various  efforts 
were  made  to  effect  such  a  modification  of  the  second,  as  should 
meet  the  views  of  the  New  Brunswick  brethren.  Mr.  Dickinson, 
as  mentioned  in  a  former  chapter,  f  proposed  that  the  matter  in  dis- 
pute should  be  referred  to  some  ecclesiastical  body  in  Scotland, 
Ireland,  or  England,  or  to  the  ministers  of  Boston.  To  this  Mr. 
Tennent  objected,  principally  because  it  would  be  difficult  to  draw 
up  a  statement  of  the  case  in  which  both  parties  would  agree  ; 
because  he  and  his  friends  had  the  smiles  of  God  on  the  course 
which  they  were  pursuing ;  and  because  of  the  low  state  of  piety 
among  those  to  whom  the  reference  was  to  be  made.  After  speak- 
ing of  the  Presbyterians  in  Scotland,  Ireland,  and  England,  as 
having  little  of  the  life  of  religion  among  them,  he  added,  "  By 
the  best  information  we  can  get,  a  dead  formality  prevails  too 
much  in  Boston,  and  many  other  places  in  New  England.  Indeed, 
we  are  of  opinion  that  the  majority  of  church  judicatories  almost 
every  where,  are  dead  formalists,  if  they  have  got  even  that  length ; 
and,  therefore,  we  incline  to  make  no  more  application  to  men  in 
the  affair  aforesaid. "J 

*  Minutes  of  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  p.  77.  Present  at  this  meeting,  be- 
sides Mr.  Tennent,  Messrs.  J.  Andrews,  Robert  Cross,  and  Richard  Treat. 

f  Chapter  iii.  p.  211. 

X  Refutation  of  Remarks  on  the  Protest,  pp.  11,  12.  The  above  quoted 
declaration  respecting  the  ministers  of  Boston,  illustrates  Mr.  Tonuent's  hasty 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  119 

It  was  proposed  by  a  member  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery 
u  that  the  Synod  might  appoint  two  of  their  number  to  be  present 
at  the  examination  of  candidates  for  the  ministry ;  who,  if  they 
found  them,  (the  Presbyteries,)  guilty  of  malconduct,  might  accuse 
them  to  the  Synod."  When  it  was  asked,  whether,  in  the  case 
these  delegates  objected  to  the  competency  of  the  candidate,  his 
licensure  would  be  put  oif  and  the  question  referred  to  the  Synod, 
the  Brunswick  brethren  declined.  So  that  overture  came  to  no- 
thing.* 

Mr.  Gillespie  proposed  "  that  every  Presbytery  should  keep  a 
full  record  of  the  trials  of  candidates  in  the  several  parts  of  neces- 
sary learning,  and  exhibit  the  same  to  the  Synod  for  their  satis- 
faction, at  the  time  of  their  admission  into  membership  in  the 
Synod.  Now  this,  at  the  first  reading,  was  like  to  take,  for  it 
seemed  to  cut  off  all  colour  of  plea  about  infringing  the  rights  of 
Presbyteries,  and  promised  to  the  Synod,  at  first  view,  the  right  of 
judging  the  qualifications  of  their  own  members.  But  in  order  to 
come  to  a  right  understanding  in  the  matter,  Mr.  Dickinson  pro- 
posed, whether,  in  case  the  account  given  of  the  trials  of  candi- 
dates should  give  just  ground  to  the  Synod  to  judge  that  said  candi- 
dates were  really  deficient  in  some  material  parts  of  useful  learn- 
ing ;  or  in  case  the  candidates  should  somehow  be  found  out  to  be 
deficient,  or  upon  rational  grounds  suspected  to  be  so,  would  Mr. 
Tennent  and  his  party  submit  such  candidates  to  the  trial  or  cen- 
sure of  Synod,  to  receive  or  reject  them,  as  they,  upon  a  fair  trial, 
should  form  a  judgment  of  their  fitness  or  unfitness  ?  To  this  Mr. 
Tennent  replied,  that  he  should  be  willing  that  the  Presbytery 
should  be  subject  to  the  Synod's  censures,  in  case  of  maladminis- 
tration in  the  matter,  but  would  not  consent  that  the  young  men 
should  be  produced,  or  be  subject  to  the  Synod's  censures,  when, 
or  if  found  to  be  defective.  On  which  the  Synod  dropped  the 
overture,  as  insufficient  to  secure  the  end  aimed  at  in  our  act ;  for  it 

manner  of  judging  of  the  religious  character  of  his  brethren.     There  were 
at  that  time  in  Boston,  Mr.  Cooper,  Mr.  Webb,  Mr.  Foxcroft,  the  two  Messrs. 
Prince,  father  and  son,  and  several  other  eminently  pious  ministers,  who,  in 
the  autumn  of  this  very  year,  1740,  received  Mr.  Tennent  with  open  arms. 
*  Refutation  of  Remarks  on  the  Protest,  pp.  21,  22. 


120  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

now  appeared  that  nothing  would  content  Mr.  Tennent,  unless  the 
Synod  would  give  up  the  right  of  judging  of  the  qualifications  of 
their  own  members."  * 

After  all  these  unsuccessful  attempts  to  effect  a  compromise,  the 
question  was  put,  whether  the  controverted  rule  should  be  repealed, 
or  continued  until  some  other  expedient  could  be  found,  and  it  was 
decided  that  the  rule  should  be  continued  in  force.  Against  this 
decision  the  six  ministerial  brethren  who  had  protested  the  year 
before  against  the  adoption  of  the  rule,  renewed  their  protest,  and 
were  joined  by  Mr.  Alexander  Oeaghead,  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Donegal,  and  Mr.  John  Cross,  of  that  of  New  Brunswick.  Messrs. 
Gillespie  and  Hucheson,  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  recorded 
their  dissent  from  the  decision,  though  they  did  not  unite  in  the 
protest.f 

The  unhappy  state  of  feeling  in  which  the  failure  of  all  efforts 
at  accommodation  had  left  the  Synod,  was  greatly  aggravated  by  a 
new  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  and  Mr.  Blair. 
They  produced  formal  papers  of  complaiat  against  their  brethren, 
which  were  read  not  only  before  the  Synod,  but  a  promiscuous 
audience.  For  this  latter  circumstance,  however,  Mr.  Blair  states 
that  neither  Mr.  Tennent  nor  himself  was  responsible,  as  he  pro- 
posed that  the  Synod  should  be  alone  when  the  papers  were  read.}. 
The  Synod,  however,  said  they  were  willing  that  all  should  hear 
what  those  brethren  had  to  produce.  Mr.  Tennent  then  rose  and 
read  as  follows  :§ 

"Moderator  and  reverend  brethren,  I  think  I  am  obliged  in  duty 
to  God  and  you,  to  present  the  following  paper  to  your  considera- 
tion, which  contains  my  reasons  for  suspecting  that  a  number  of 
the  members  of  this  Synod  are  in  a  carnal  state. 

"  First,  their  unsoundness  in  some  principal  doctrines  of  Chris- 

*  Refutation,  &c.  pp.  15,  16.  f  See  above,  chap.  iii.  p.  211. 

%  Vindication  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  p.  225,  of  Blair's  Works. 

\  One  paragraph  of  Mr.  Tennent's  paper  was  quoted  above,  chap.  iii.  p.  199. 
It  is  here  given  again  for  the  sake  of  the  connection.  The  whole  is  copied 
from  Mr.  Thompson's  book  on  the  Government  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  p.  9, 
et  seq. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  121 

tianity,  that  relate  to  experience  and  practice,  as  particularly  in 
the  following  points.  1.  That  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
glory  of  God  and  our  happiness ;  that  self-love  is  the  foundation 
of  all  obedience.  These  doctrines  do,  in  my  opinion,  entirely 
overset,  if  true,  all  supernatural  religion,  render  regeneration  a 
vain  and  needless  thing ;  involve  a  crimson  blasphemy  against  the 
blessed  God,  by  putting  ourselves  on  a  level  with  him.  2.  That 
there  is  a  certainty  of  salvation  connected  to  the  labours  of  natural 
men.  This  doctrine  supposes  the  greatest  falsehood,  viz.  that  there 
is  a  free  will  in  man  naturally  to  acceptable  good  ;  and  is  attended 
with  the  most  dangerous  consequences,  viz.  fixing  men  upon  their 
own  righteousness,  and  utterly  overthrowing  the  covenant  of  grace. 
For  if  there  is  a  certainty  annexed  to  the  endeavours  of  natural 
men,  it  must  be  by  promise ;  but  a  promise  is  a  debt.  As  these 
opinions  are  contrary  to  the  express  testimony  of  the  Scriptures, 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Christian  experience,  they  give  me 
reason  to  suspect  at  least  that  those  who  hold  them  are  rotten- 
hearted  hypocrites,  utter  strangers  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  God 
and  of  their  own  hearts. 

"  Secondly,  there  be  these  things  in  the  preaching  of  some  of  our 
members  which  induces  me  to  suspect  the  state  of  their  souls, 
namely,  1.  Their  preaching  seems  to  be  powerless  and  unsavoury. 
Christ  preached  with  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes.  If  any 
object  and  say,  How  can  they  be  known  ?  I  answer,  Christ's  sheep 
hear  his  voice.  Living  men  have  sense  and  savour.  2.  Too  gene- 
ral, not  searching  sinners'  hearts  so  narrowly  as  they  ought,  nor 
giving  them  their  different  portions,  according  to  the  apostle's 
directions  to  Timothy.  3.  Soft  and  flattering.  Some  seem  to  be 
afraid  to  cry  aloud  and  not  spare ;  afraid  to  use  the  terrors  of  the 
Lord  to  persuade  men.  This  seems  too  like  men-pleasing  and  fear 
of  the  cross,  whatever  plausible  pretences  are  offered  to  palliate  it, 
by  cowardly,  covetous  souls,  notwithstanding.  4.  Legal ;  many 
are  for  crying  up  duties,  duties,  and  urging  natural  men  to  them 
almost  constantly,  as  if  outward  things  were  the  whole  of  religion. 
Is  not  this  like  the  foolish  builders,  to  pretend  to  build  a  fabric 
without  a  foundation  ?     It  is  true,  the  externals  of  religion  are  to 


122  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

be  pressed  in  their  place ;  but  their  insufficiency,  without  inward 
good  principles,  should  be  shown.  He,  sure,  that  would  build 
high,  must  dig  deep,  and  lay  the  foundation  low ;  but  I  doubt  there 
are  not  many  among  us  that  open  the  nature,  and  urge  the  neces- 
sity of  our  dangerous  state  by  nature.  5.  Unsuccessful,  with  the 
appearance  of  contentedness  under  it.  Aaron's  rod  blossomed, 
and  brought  forth  almonds,  while  the  rest  of  the  rods  were  dry  and 
barren  ;  and  by  this  the  divine  call  of  the  tribe  was  manifested, 
while  bare  pretenders  were  blasted.  God  will  not  send  ministers 
for  nothing ;  no,  sure,  whom  he  sends,  and  who  stand  in  his  coun- 
sel, shall  profit  the  people. 

"  These  things  following  respecting  their  practice,  incline  me  to 
suspect  their  state.  1.  Great  stiffness  in  opinion,  generally  in 
smaller  matters  wherein  good  men  may  differ ;  continual  pertness 
and  confidence,  as  if  they  were  infallible ;  which  shows  that  the 
pride  of  their  understanding  was  never  broken,  and  that  they  feel 
not  their  need  of  Christ  as  a  prophet.  2.  Opposition  to  God's 
servants  and  work  ;  insisting  much  upon  the  real  or  supposed  im- 
prudences of  God's  servants,  but  passing  over  in  silence  their  valu- 
able qualifications  and  worthy  actions.  This  looks  pharisee-and- 
devil  like,  notwithstanding  all  the  colourings  of  crafty  men.  3. 
That  there  is  no  knowing  of  people's  states.  Though  there  is  no 
infallible  knowledge  of  the  estates  of  some  attainable,  yet  there  is 
a  satisfactory  knowledge  to  be  attained.  Ministers  crying  out 
against  this,  is  an  evidence  of  their  unfaithfulness  in  neglecting  to 
use  the  properest  means  to  convince  sinners  of  their  damnable 
state.  It  shows  also  their  ignorance  of  divine  things ;  or  mani- 
fests their  consciousness  of  their  own  hypocrisy  and  fear  of  dis- 
covery. 4.  Letting  men  out  into  the  ministry  without  so  much  as 
examining  them  about  their  Christian  experience,  notwithstanding 
a  late  canon  of  this  Synod  enjoining  the  same.  How  contrary  is 
this  practice  to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  our  Directory,  and  of  how 
dangerous  a  tendency  to  the  church  of  God !  Is  it  probable  that 
truly  gracious  persons  would  thus  slight  the  precious  souls  of  men  ? 
5.  More  zeal  for  outward  order  than  for  the  main  points  of  prac- 
tical religion.     Witness  the  committee's  slighting  and  shuffling  the 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  123 

late  debate  about  the  glory  of  God,*  and  their  present  contention 
about  the  committee-act.  This  is  too  much  like  the  zeal  of  the  old 
pharisees  in  tithing  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,  while  they  neglected 
the  weightier  matters  of  the  law. 

"  These  things,  my  brethren,  I  mention  in  the  fear  and  love  of 
God,  without  personal  prejudice  against  any.  That  God  who 
knows  my  heart  is  witness,  that  I  heartily  desire  the  conviction  of 
those  ministers  whom  I  suspect,  and  that  they  may  be  as  burning 
and  shining  lights  in  the  church  of  God.  But  I  am  obliged  in 
faithfulness  to  God  and  the  souls  of  men,  to  make  mention  of  these 
things,  which  are  distressing  to  my  heart,  as  some  of  the  reasons 
why  I  protest  against  all  restraints  in  preaching  the  everlasting 
gospel  in  this  degenerate  state  of  the  church.  Rules  which  are 
serviceable  in  ordinary  cases,  when  the  church  is  stocked  with  a 
faithful  ministry,  are  notoriously  prejudicial  when  the  church  is 
oppressed  with  a  carnal  ministry.  Besides  the  remarkable  success 
that  God  has  given  of  late  to  Mr.  Whitefield's  travelling  labours, 
and  several  others  in  this  country,  makes  me  abhor  the  slavish 
schemes  of  bigots,  as  to  confinement  in  preaching  the  blessed  gos- 
pel of  Christ.  I  am,  reverend  gentlemen,  your  well-wisher  and 
humble  servant,  Gilbert  Tennent." 

The  paper  read  by  Mr.  Blair  contained  the  same  general  com- 
plaints. Though  milder  in  its  language,  it  probably  gave  quite  as 
much  offence,  as  he  was  at  that  time  comparatively  a  young  man, 
and  addressed  himself  to  men,  some  of  whom  were  in  the  ministry 
before  he  was  born,  and  who  had  hitherto  enjoyed  the  confidence 
of  the  church,  and  led  lives  of  great  labour  and  self-denial  in  her 
service. 

The  whole  proceeding,  though  doubtless  well  intended,  was  in 
every  point  of  view  exceptionable.  The  charges  were  in  general 
so  vague,  that  they  could  neither  be  proved  or  disproved  ;  they 
rested  on  hearsay  evidence,  for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  Mr. 

*  This  refers  to  the  report  brought  in  by  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Pierson,  Pem- 
berton,  Thompson,  Anderson,  Boyd,  and  Treat,  on  the  dispute  between  Mr. 
Tennent  and  Mr.  Cowell.  See  above,  chapter  iii.  p.  197.  Very  few  Synod i 
in  our  day  could  furnish  a  committee  of  seven  better  men. 


124  PRESBYTERIAN   CHUKCH 

Tennent  or  Mr.  Blair  had  many  opportunities  of  hearing  how  a. I 
their  brethren  preached  ;  and  worst  of  all  they  were  addressed  indis- 
criminately against  the  body  in  general;  thus  the  innocent  and 
guilty  were  made,  to  suffer  alike.  The  Synod  and  the  large  audience 
which  crowded  the  house,*  were  made  to  know  that  Mr.  Tennent 
thought  that  many  or  most  of  his  brethren  were  in  "  a  carnal 
state ;"  but  who  were  intended  no  one  could  tell.  Some  of  his 
charges  referred  specifically  to  many  of  the  best  men  in  the  Synod  ; 
others  might  be  applied  to  any  or  every  one,  just  as  the  hearers 
pleased.  The  other  members  of  the  Synod  of  course  expostulated 
with  these  brethren  on  the  impropriety  of  this  course,  and  "  ear- 
nestly pressed  and  entreated  them  to  spare  no  man  in  the  Synod 
whom  they  could  prove  to  be  unsound  in  doctrine  or  immoral  in 
practice,  but  prayed  them  only  to  take  Christ's  methods  with  all 
such,  and  not  to  condemn  the  innocent  with  the  guilty."f  To  this 
Mr.  Tennent  replies,  "  we  did  then  offer  to  prove  the  matters  of 
charge  against  particular  members,  if  the  Synod  required  it,  but 
this  was  waived."|  This  is  not  a  very  fair  statement.  The  Synod 
very  properly  waived  taking  up  Mr.  Tennent's  vague  charges,  and 
themselves  instituting  process  on  the  ground  of  them.  They  urged 
him,  however,  to  proceed  properly,  "by  tabling  charges  in  a  regular 
way,  against  particular  persons,  and  not  to  blacken  all."§  Mr. 
Tennent  and  Mr.  Blair  "  frankly  owned,"  that  they  had  not  "  spoken 
with  the  persons  intended  in  the  said  libels,"  and  that  they  had  not 
"made  any  regular  inquiries  into  the  truth  of  said  reports."  The 
Synod  then  declined  proceeding  with  the  matter  until  the  persons 
aimed  at  had  been  apprized  of  the  charges,  and  until  they  "  had 
been  regularly  tried  in  their  respective  presbyteries."||  And  this 
trial  these  brethren  were  urged  to  institute  at  once.  This  course 
was  urged  upon  them  on  another  occasion  not  long  afterwards. 
For  it  is  stated,  that  "  Messrs.  Gilbert  Tennent,  Samuel  Blair,  and 

*  Mr.  Thompson  speaks  several  times  of  the  congregation  present  when  the 
above-mentioned  papers  were  read,  as  very  large ;  and  it  is  elsewhere  stated, 
that  the  house  was  filled  with  "  a  tumultuous  crowd." —  Refutation,  &c.  p.  32 

f  Preface  to  the  Protest.  X  Remarks  on  the  Protest. 

\  Refutation,  &c.  p.  33.  ||  Ibid.  p.  33. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  125 

Charles  Tennent,  were  most  earnestly  pressed  by  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Castle  to  spare  none  of  their  number,  but  to  table  their  com- 
plaints against  them,  if  they  could  convict  any  of  them  of  any 
thing  unbecoming  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  Nay,  Mr.  Gillespie 
entreated  them  in  open  Presbytery,  for  the  Lord's  sake  to  do  so  ; 
but  all  to  no  purpose."*  Mr.  Tennent's  answer  to  this  was,  "That 
the  said  proposal  was  matter  of  surprise  to  him  ;  that  he  had  no 
thought  about  any  such  thing  before  it  was  mentioned  in  the  face 
of  the  judicatory  ;  that  his  meeting  with  the  Presbytery  was  merely 
accidental ;  and  that  his  entering  on  a  judicial  process  was  incon- 
sistent with  his  design  and  appointments  of  itinerary  preaching."f 
He  certainly  then  ought  not  to  have  made  the  charges,  unless  he 
could  stop  to  prove  them.  Besides,  the  Presbytery  told  him  they 
would  wait  his  leisure ;  or  he  might  "  leave  them  an  account  of 
the  matter  in  writing,  if  he  could  not  attend  their  meeting ;  and 
that  they  would  take  it  any  way."! 

The  conduct  of  Mr.  Tennent  and  his  friends  in  thus  condemning 
his  brethren  unheard,  seems  to  have  produced  a  deep  and  general 
feeling  of  disapprobation.  Before  the  New  York  brethren  would 
consent  to  join  with  these  New  Brunswick  brethren,  in  the  forma- 
tion of  a  new  Synod,  it  was  expressly  stipulated  that,  "  if  any 
member  of  their  body  supposes  that  he  hath  any  thing  to  object 
against  any  of  his  brethren,  with  respect  to  error  in  doctrine,  immo- 
rality in  life,  or  negligence  in  his  ministry,  he  shall  on.no  account 
propagate  the  scandal,  until  the  person  objected  against  is  dealt 
with  according  to  the  rules  of  the  gospel,  and  the  known  methods 
of  their  discipline."§  And  it  has  already  been  mentioned  that  Mr. 
Tennent  himself,  as  soon  as  the  excitement  of  the  revival  had  sub- 
sided, condemned  with  unsparing  severity  the  "  God-provoking  sin" 
of  rashly  judging  men  to  be  graceless  who  were  sound  in  essential 
doctrines,  and  regular  in  their  lives.  ||  At  this  time,  however,  as 
he  says  himself,  he  abhorred  all  confinement  in  preaching  the  gos- 

*  Preface  to  the  Protest.  f  Remarks  on  the  Protest. 

X  Refutation,  &c.  p.  34.  g  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  3. 

(I  See  the  passages  quoted  in  his  Irenicum  in  the  preceding  chapter. 


126  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

pel,  and  would  keep  no  terms  with  any  man  who  did  not  come  up 
to  the  standard  of  his  own  ardent  zeal. 

It  was  in  this  year  he  preached  his  famous  Nottingham  sermon 
on  the  danger  of  an  unconverted  ministry.  As  this  sermon  may 
be  regarded  as  one  of  the  principal  causes  of  the  schism,  it  demands 
particular  attention.  His  text  was  Mark  vi.  34  :  "  Jesus,  when  he 
came  out,  saw  much  people,  and  was  moved  with  compassion  towards 
them,  because  they  were  as  sheep  not  having  a  shepherd;"  from 
which  he  deduces  the  following  proposition  :  "  The  case  of  such  is 
much  to  be  pitied  who  have  no  other  but  pharisee-shepherds  or 
unconverted  teachers."  Under  the  first  head  of  his  sermon,  he 
describes  the  character  of  the  ancient  pharisees,  which  he  unfolds 
under  the  heads  of  pride,  policy,  malice,  ignorance,  covetousness, 
and  bigotry  to  human  inventions  in  religious  matters.  "  Although," 
he  says,  "  some  of  the  old  pharisee-shepherds  had  a  very  fair  and 
strict  outside,  yet  were  they  ignorant  of  the  new  birth.  Witness 
Rabbi  Nicodemus,  who  talked  like  a  fool  about  it.  Hear  how  our 
Lord  cursed  those  plastered  hypocrites.  Matthew  xxiii.  27,  28.  Ay, 
if  they  had  but  a  little  of  the  learning  then  in  fashion,  and  a  fair 
outside,  they  were  presently  put  into  the  priest's  office,  though  they 
had  no  experience  of  the  new  birth.  0  sad !  The  old  pharisees, 
for  all.  their  prayers  and  other  pious  pretences,  had  their  eyes  with 
Judas  fixed  on  the  bag.  Why,  they  came  into  the  priest's  office  for 
a  piece  of  bread ;  they  took  it  up  as  a  trade,  and  therefore  endea- 
voured to  make  the  best  market  of  it  they  could.     0  shame  !" 

Under  his  second  head,  he  shows  why  those  who  have  no  other 
than  pharisee  teachers  are  to  be  pitied.  His  reasons  are,  1.  Be- 
cause natural  men  have  no  call  of  God  to  the  ministry,  under  the 
gospel  dispensation.  2.  Because  the  ministry  of  natural  men  is 
uncomfortable  to  gracious  souls.  3.  The  ministry  of  natural  men 
is  for  the  most  part  unprofitable.  "  What  if  some  instances  could 
be  shown  of  unconverted  ministers  being  instrumental  of  convincing 
sinners  of  their  lost  state?  The  thing  is  very  rare  and  extraordi- 
nary. And  for  what  I  know,  as  many  instances  may  be  given  of 
Satan's  convincing  persons  by  his  temptations.  Indeed,  it  is  a 
kind  of  chance-medley,  both  in  respect  of  the  father  and  his  chil- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  127 

dren,  when  any  such  event  happens.  And  is  not  this  the  reason 
why  a  work  of  conviction  and  conversion  has  been  so  rarely  heard 
of  for  a  long  time  in  the  churches  till  of  late,  viz. :  That  the  bulk 
of  her  spiritual  guides  are  stone  blind  and  stone  dead?"  4.  The 
ministry  of  natural  men  is  dangerous,  both  in  respect  to  the  doc- 
trines and  practice  of  piety.  "  The  doctrines  of  original  sin,  jus- 
tification by  faith  alone,  and  the  other  points  of  Calvinism,  are 
very  cross  to  the  grain  of  unrenewed  nature.  And  though  men, 
by  the  influence  of  a  good  education,  and  hopes  of  preferment, 
may  have  the  edge  of  their  natural  enmity  against  them  blunted, 
yet  it  is  far  from  being  broken  or  removed.  It  is  only  the  saving 
grace  of  God  that  can  give  us  a  true  relish  for  those  nature-humbling 
doctrines,  and  so  effectually  secure  us  from  being  infected  by  the 
contrary." 

In  answer  to  the  objection  to  what  he  had  said  about  the  ministry 
of  natural  men,  that  Judas  was  sent  by  Christ,  he  answers,  1.  That 
the  ministry  of  Judas  was  partly  legal.  2.  That  it  was  extraordi- 
narily necessary,  in  order  to  fulfil  some  ancient  prophecies  concern- 
ing him.  "  I  fear  that  the  abuse  of  this  instance  has  brought  many 
Judases  into  the  ministry,  whose  chief  desire,  like  their  great  grand- 
father, is  to  finger  the  pence  and  carry  the  bag.  But  let  such  hire- 
ling murderous  hypocrites  take  care  that  they  don't  feel  the  force  of 
a  halter  in  this  world,  and  an  aggravated  damnation  in  the  next." 

Under  the  third  head  he  shows  "  how  pity  should  be  expressed 
on  this  mournful  occasion."  1.  We  should  mourn  over  those  who 
are  destitute  of  a  faithful  ministry,  and  sympathize  with   them. 

2.  We  should  pray  for  them,  and  especially  pray  the  Lord  of  the 
harvest,  that  he  would  send  forth  faithful  labourers  into  his  harvest. 

3.  We  should  join  our  endeavours  to  our  prayers.  "  The  most 
likely  method  to  stock  the  church  with  a  faithful  ministry,  in  the 
present  state  of  things,  the  public  academies  being  so  much  cor- 
rupted and  abused  generally,  is  to  encourage  private  schools  or 
seminaries  of  learning,  which  are  under  the  care  of  skilful  and 
experienced  Christians,  into  which  those  only  should  be  admitted, 
who,  upon  a  strict  examination  have,  in  the  judgment  of  charity, 
the  plain  evidences  of  experimental  religion." 


128  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

His  first  inference  from  this  subject  is,  "  If  it  he  so,  that  the 
case  of  those  who  have  no  other  and  no  better  than  pharisee-teach- 
ers  is  to  be  pitied,  then  what  a  scroll  and  scene  of  mourning, 
lamentation,  and  woe  is  opened,  because  of  the  swarms  of  locusts, 
the  crowds  of  pharisees,  that  have  as  covetously  as  cruelly  crept 
into  the  ministry,  in  this  adulterous  generation  !  who  as  nearly 
resemble  the  character  given  of  the  old  pharisees,  in  the  doctrinal 
part  of  this  discourse,  as  one  crow's  egg  does  another.  It  is  true 
some  of  the  modern  pharisees  have  learned  to  prate  a  little  more 
orthodoxly  about  the  new  birth,  than  their  predecessor  Nicodemus, 
who  are,  in  the  meantime,  as  great  strangers  to  the  feeling  expe- 
rience of  it  as  he.  They  are  blind  who  see  not  this  to  be  the  case 
of  the  body  of  the  clergy  of  this  generation." 

2.  "  From  what  has  been  said,  we  may  learn  that  such  who  are 
contented  under  a  dead  ministry,  have  not  in  them  the  temper  of 
that  Saviour  they  profess.  It  is  an  awful  sign,  that  they  are  as 
blind  as  moles,  and  as  dead  as  stones,  without  any  spiritual  taste 
and  relish.  And  alas  !  is  not  this  the  case  of  multitudes  ?  If  they 
can  get  one  that  has  the  name  of  a  minister,  with  a  band  and  a 
black  coat  or  gown,  to  carry  on  a  sabbath-day  among  them,  although 
never  so  coldly  and  unsuccessfully,  if  he  is  free  from  gross  crimes 
in  practice,  and  takes  care  to  keep  at  a  due  distance  from  their 
consciences,  and  is  never  troubled  by  his  unsuccessfulness,  0  !  think 
the  poor  fools,  that  is  a  fine  man,  indeed,  our  minister  is  a  prudent 
charitable  man,  he  is  not  always  harping  upon  terror,  nor  sounding 
damnation  in  our  ears,  like  some  rash-headed  ministers." 

3.  Such  as  enjoy  a  faithful  ministry  should  glorify  God  on  that 
account,  and  walk  worthy  of  so  distinguished  a  privilege. 

4.  "  If  the  ministry  of  natural  men  be  as  it  has  been  described, 
then  it  is  both  lawful  and  expedient  to  go  from  them  to  hear  godly 
persons ;  yea,  it  is  so  far  from  being  sinful  to  do  this,  that  one  who 
lives  under  a  pious  minister  of  lesser  gifts,  after  having  honestly 
endeavoured  to  get  benefit  by  his  ministry,  and  yet  gets  little  or 
none,  but  doth  find  real  benefit,  and  more  benefit  elsewhere,  I  say, 
he  may  lawfully  go,  and  that  frequently,  where  he  gets  most  benefit 
to  his  precious  soul,  after  regular  application  to  the  pastor  where 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  129 

he  lives,  for  his  consent,  and  proposing  the  reasons  thereof;  when 
this  is  done  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  meekness,  without  contempt 
of  any,  as  also  without  rash  anger,  or  vain  curiosity."  He  then 
argues  at  length  the  propriety  of  people  leaving  their  pastors,  first, 
when  the  pastor  is  pious,  but  of  inferior  gifts ;  and,  secondly,  when 
he  is  unconverted.  As  to  the  former  case,  he  says,  it  is  matter  of 
instinct  to  seek  the  greater  good  in  preference  to  the  less  ;  we  are 
commanded  to  covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts ;  there  is  diversity  of 
gifts  among  ministers,  and  God  ordinarily  blesses  the  best  gifts  to 
the  greater  edification  of  the  people ;  as  people  have  a  right  to  the 
gifts  of  all  God's  ministers,  they  may  use  them  as  they  have  oppor- 
tunity ;  Christ  did  not  reprove  John's  disciples  for  coming  to  hear 
himself,  not  only  on  week-days,  but  on  the  Sabbath ;  to  bind  men 
to  a  particular  minister  against  their  inclination  is  carnal  with  a 
witness,  it  is  a  cruel  oppression  of  tender  consciences,  and  an  in- 
fringement of  Christian  liberty ;  if  the  great  end  of  hearing  can 
be  better  attained  elsewhere,  then,  "  I  see  not  why  we  should  be 
under  a  fatal  necessity  of  hearing  our  parish  minister,  perpetually 
or  generally." 

With  regard  to  the  latter  case  he  is  more  strenuous.  "  If  it  be 
lawful  to  withdraw  from  the  ministry  of  a  pious  man,  in  the  case 
aforesaid,  how  much  more  from  the  ministry  of  a  natural  man  ! 
Surely  it  is  both  lawful  and  expedient,  for  the  reasons  offered  in 
the  doctrinal  part  of  this  discourse ;  to  which  let  me  add  a  few 
words  more." 

The  additional  considerations  which  he  urges  are  the  following. 
1.  It  is  unwise  to  trust  the  care  of  our  souls  to  those  who  have  no 
care  of  their  own.  2.  God  does  not  ordinarily  use  the  ministry  of 
his  enemies  to  turn  others  to  be  his  friends.  God  has  not  given 
any  promise  that  he  will  bless  the  labours  of  natural  men.  If  he 
had  he  would  be  as  good  as  his  word ;  but  I  can  neither  see  nor 
hear  of  any  blessing  upon  these  men's  labours,  unless  it  be  a  rare 
wonderful  instance  of  chance-medley ;  whereas  the  ministry  of 
faithful  men  blossoms  and  bears  fruit,  as  the  rod  of  Aaron.  8. 
We  are  commanded  to  turn  away  from  such  as  have  the  form  of 
godliness,  but  deny  the  power  thereof.  4.  Our  Lord  advised  his 
VOL.  II. — 9 


130  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

disciples  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  pharisees,  by  which  he 
meant  their  doctrine  and  hypocrisy,  which  were  both  sour  enough. 
5.  He  refers  to  Matt.  xv.  12,  &c.  "  Then  came  his  disciples,  and 
said  unto  him,  Knowest  thou  that  the  pharisees  were  offended? 
And  he  answered  and  said,  Every  plant  that  my  heavenly  Father 
hath  not  planted,  shall  be  rooted  up.  Let  them  alone ;  they  be 
blind  leaders  of  the  blind ;  and  if  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both 
shall  fall  into  the  ditch." 

He  next  considers  the  objections  to  such  a  course,  as,  1.  We  are 
commanded  to  hear  those  who  sit  in  Moses'  seat.  This  only  means 
that  we  are  bound  to  obey  the  lawful  commands  of  the  civil  magis- 
trates. 2.  Such  a  practice  would  cause  contentions  among  the 
people.  It  may  occasion  them,  but  not  properly  cause  them.  If 
we  give  up  every  duty  that  is  the  occasion  of  contention  and  divi- 
sion, we  must  give  up  powerful  religion  altogether.  3.  1  Cor.  i. 
12,  which  speaks  of  Paul  and  Apollos,  is  not  against  the  course 
recommended,  for  that  only  speaks  of  making  sects.  4.  Such  a 
course  would  tend  to  grieve  our  parish  minister,  and  to  break  up 
congregations.  "  If  our  parish  minister  be  grieved  at  our  greater 
good,  or  prefer  his  credit  before  it,  then  he  has  good  cause  to  grieve 
over  his  own  rottenness  and  hypocrisy.  And  as  for  breaking  of  con- 
gregations to  pieces,  upon  account  of  people's  going  from  place  to 
place  to  hear  the  word,  with  a  view  to  get  greater  good,  that  spirit- 
ual blindness  and  deadness  which  so  generally  prevail,  will  put  this 
out  of  danger.  It  is  but  a  few  that  have  got  any  spiritual  relish. 
The  most  will  venture  their  souls  with  any  formalist,  and  be  well 
satisfied  with  the  sapless  discourses  of  such  dead  drones."  5.  Paul 
and  Apollos  are  said  to  be  nothing.  True,  they  were  nothing  as 
efficient  causes,  but  they  were  something  as  instruments.  6.  Final- 
ly, it  is  objected,  people  do  not  get  more  good  over  their  parish 
line,  for  they  are  out  of  God's  way.  There  are  three  monstrous 
ingredients  in  this  objection,  a  begging  the  question,  rash  judging, 
and  limiting  of  God.  It  is  a  mean  thing  in  reasoning  to  beg  the 
question  in  debate.  Let  it  be  proved  that  they  are  out  of  God's 
way..  It  is  rash  judging  to  say  people  do  not  get  good,  when  we 
cannot  know  it  to  be  so ;  and  it  is  to  limit  God  to  confine  him  to 
one  mode  of  action. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  131 

He  concludes  by  exhorting  those  who  have  a  faithful  ministry, 
to  make  a  speedy  and  sincere  use  of  so  rare  a  privilege.  He  ex- 
horts gracious  souls  to  pity  those  who  have  none  but  pharisee-teach- 
ers.  He  urges  "  those  who  live  under  the  ministry  of  dead  men, 
whether  they  have  the  form  of  religion  or  not,  to  repair  to  the  liv- 
ing, where  they  may  be  edified  ;  let  who  will  oppose  it."  He  ex- 
horts vacant  congregations  to  be  careful  in  trying  those  whom  they 
think  of  calling  as  pastors.  "  I  beseech  you,  my  brethren,  to  con- 
sider that  there  is  no  probability  of  your  getting  good  by  the  min- 
istry of  pharisees  ;  for  they  are  no  shepherds,  (no  faithful  ones,) 
in  Christ's  account.  They  are  as  good  as  none ;  nay,  worse  than 
none  on  some  accounts.  For  take  them  first  and  last,  they  do 
more  harm  than  good.  They  strive  to  keep  better  men  out  of  the 
places  where  they  live ;  nay,  when  the  life  of  piety  comes  near 
their  quarters,  they  rise  up  in  arms  against  it,  as  a  common  enemy 
that  discovers  and  condemns  their  craft  and  hypocrisy.  And  with 
what  art,  rhetoric,  and  appearances  of  piety,  will  they  varnish  their 
opposition  to  Christ's  kingdom  !  As  the  magicians  imitated  the 
wonders  of  Moses,  so  do  false  apostles  and  deceitful  workers,  the 
apostles  of  Christ." 

This  sermon  had  an  extensive  circulation.  Two  editions  of  it 
were  published  in  Philadelphia,  and  a  third  in  Boston.  Two  of  the 
principal  grounds  of  complaint  against  Mr.  Tennent  and  his  friends, 
were  the  censorious  condemnation  of  their  brethren,  and  the  en- 
couragement they  gave  the  people  to  separate  from  their  pastors. 
Though  this  sermon  was  by  no  means  the  only  ground  of  these 
complaints,  it  was  one  of  the  most  tangible  proofs  of  their  justice, 
and  hence  was  constantly  appealed  to  in  the  controversies  of  that 
day.  On  this  account  a  knowledge  of  its  contents  and  character 
is  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  history  of  the  period 
now  under  consideration. 

In  this  discourse  Mr.  Tennent  describes  the  body  of  the  minis- 
ters of  that  generation  as  letter-learned  pharisees,  plastered  hypo- 
crites, having  the  form  of  godliness  but  destitute  of  its  power. 
That  this  description  was  intended  to  apply  to  his  brethren  in  the 
Synod,  it  is  believed  was  never  doubted.     Considering  the  circum- 


132  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

stances  under  winch  it  was  delivered,  and  his  frequent  avowals  of 
similar  sentiments  respecting  them  on  other  occasions,  it  could  hardly 
have  any  other  application.  In  the  sermon  itself  he  tells  the  people 
that  the  reason  why  they  had  seen  so  few  cases  of  conviction  or  con- 
version among  them,  was,  that  "  the  bulk  of  their  spiritual  guides 
were  stone  blind  and  stone  dead."  In  answer  to  the  criticism  which 
it  occasioned,  he  says,  "  When  I  composed  it,  I  expected  it  would 
be  judged,  by  that  tribe  which  it  detected,  as  guilty  of  scanclalum 
magnatum,  as  worthy  of  stripes  and  of  bonds.  I  supposed  it 
would  be  like  rousing  a  wasp's  nest,  and  I  have*  found  it  according 
to  my  expectations.  The  opposers  of  God's  work  have  dipt  their 
tongues  and  pens  in  gall,  and  by  their  malignant  invectives  have 
endeavoured  to  bury  its  author  in  ruins ;  but  peradventure  it  may 
have  a  resurrection  to  their  terror  and  shame."*  Some  members 
of  the  Synod  had  placed  together  in  dreadful  array  the  terms  of 
invective  contained  in  this  discourse.  In  reference  to  which  he 
says,  "  I  have  heard  people  of  piety  and  good  sense  observe  upon 
this  popular  paragraph,  that  the  gentlemen  who  had  put  it  together 
in  its  present  form,  had  taken  a  pretty  deal  of  pains  to  draw  their 
own  pictures."  f  He  denies  that  the  Nottingham  sermon  had  been 
the  cause  of  contention;  "No,"  says  he,  "the  true  cause  is  grace- 
less ministers  opposing  it.  Methinks  it  would  be  more  to  their 
credit,  prudently  to  let  it  alone  on  their  own  account,  for  when 
they  keep  muttering,  growling,  and  scolding  at  it,  it  does  but  give 
people  ground  to  suspect  that  they  are  of  that  unhappy  tribe  and 
party  themselves,  which  is  therein  detected  and  censured."  J 

The  Nottingham  sermon,  though  the  principal  printed  example 
of  Mr.  Tennent's  manner  of  treating  his  brethren,  is  by  no  means 
the  only  one.  In  most  of  his  controversial  writings  of  this  period, 
he  speaks  of  them  as  the  malignant  opposers  of  true  religion,  and 
ascribes  'their  conduct  to  the  most  unworthy  motives.  In  a  work 
published  in  1743,  we  find,  for  example,  the  following  passage. 
"  Give  me  leave  to  propose  this  query  to  Mr.  Thompson  and  his 
associates,  whether  it  was  because  that  such  as  were  convinced  of  sin 
had  generally  a  less  esteem  for  his  ministry,  and  of  some  of  the 
*  Examiner  Examined,  p.  31.  f  Ibid.  p.  79.  %  Ibid.  p.  146. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  133 

rest  of  his  party,  that  he  and  some,  at  least,  of  them  have  so 
fiercely  opposed  the  blessed  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  alarm- 
ing and  convincing  a  secure  world  of  sin,  righteousness,  and  judg- 
ment ?  If  so,  is  it  not  selfish  and  sordid  with  a  witness,  and  a 
blow  at  the  root  of  all  piety  ?  For  my  own  part  I  must  say,  that 
I  humbly  conceive  that  to  be  the  secret  of  the  story  of  their  oppo- 
sition, the  bottom  of  the  mystery,  the  true  spring  of  their  malig- 
nant contending  against  vital  godliness.  The  false  and  ungenerous 
methods,  as  well  as  long  continuance  of  their  opposition  to  the 
work  of  God,  under  so  much  advantage  of  light  and  evidence  in 
favour  of  it,  together  with  their  dangerous  errors*  before  mentioned, 
free  me  from  the  just  imputation  of  rash  judging  in  thinking  as  I 
have  expressed."  f 

Mr.  Tennent  was  so  completely  the  soul  of  the  party  to  which 
he  belonged,  that  without  him  it  never  would  have  existed.  He  is 
often,  therefore,  addressed  as  the  party  itself,  and  his  writings  and 
declarations  are  referred  to  as  speaking  the  language  of  his  asso- 
ciates. Though  the  most  prominent  and  the  most  violent,  he  was  not 
the  only  one  who  indulged  in  these  vehement  denunciations  of  his 
brethren.  Mr.  Blair,  though  a  much  milder  man,  was  scarcely  less 
severe  in  his  judgments ;  and  Mr.  Creaghead,  Mr.  Finley,  and 
others  followed  in  the  same  course.  Such  denunciations  as  we  find 
in  the  Nottingham  sermon  and  other  writings  of  that  day,  cannot 
be  excused  on  the  plea  of  zeal  or  fidelity.  Their  only  tendency 
was  to  exasperate.  Other  men  as  faithful  as  Mr.  Tennent|  were 
never  guilty  either  of  his  censoriousness  or  violence.  We  never 
hear  of  any  complaints  against  President  Dickinson,  Mr.  Pierson, 
Mr.  Pemberton,  and  other  active  friends  of  the  revival.  For  these 
gentlemen  the  highest  respect  and  the  kindest  feelings  were,  on  all 
occasions,  expressed  by  those  who  differed  from  them  in  opinion, 
as  to  the  general  character  and  probable  results  of  the  religious 
excitement  which  then  prevailed.     There  can  be  no  doubt,  there- 

*  This  refers  to  Mr.  Thompson's  doctrine  on  the  nature  of  conviction  of  sin, 
which  will  be  stated  in  the  sequel. 

|  Examiner  Examined,  p.  78. 


134  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

fore,  that  Mr.  Tennent's  unhappy  violence  was  one  of  the  princi- 
pal causes  of  that  entire  alienation  of  feeling,  which  soon  resulted 
in  an  open  rupture.  When  such  denunciations  come  from  men  of 
doubtful  character  or  feeble  intellect,  they  are  commonly  and  safely 
disregarded.  But  when  they  are  hurled  by  such  men  as  Tennent. 
men  of  acknowledged  piety  and  commanding  power,  they  car 
hardly  fail  to  shatter  the  society  among  which  they  fall.  Mr.  Ten- 
nent became  fully  sensible  of  the  impropriety  of  this  censorious 
spirit,  and  laboured  hard  to  correct  the  evils  it  had  occasioned.  It 
is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  same  man  could  write  the  Notting- 
ham Sermon  and  the  Irenicum  Ecclesiasticum.  The  former  is  full 
of  coarse  invective ;  the  latter  is  distinguished  for  mildness,  libe- 
rality, and  a  conciliatory  spirit.  And  what  makes  the  case  the 
more  remarkable,  the  latter  excuses,  vindicates,  and  even  praises 
the  very  men  whom  the  former  denounced.  In  the  Irenicum  he 
lays  down  the  canon,  that  to  declare  those  persons  to  be  graceless, 
who  are  "  sound  in  the  fundamental  truths  of  religion,  and  regular 
in  life,"  is  a  grievous  offence  against  God  and  the  church.  Yet 
the  brethren  whom  he  denounced,  he  describes  in  general  as  letter- 
learned  orthodox,  having  a  fair  outside,  the  form  of  godliness,  and 
even  in  some  cases,  a  great  appearance  of  religion.  They  were, 
therefore,  both  sound  and  regular.  There  is  no  doubt,  however, 
that  he  understood  his  brethren  of  the  Synod  as  coming  within  the 
scope  of  his  rule  ;  for  it  is  in  express  reference  to  them  that  he 
lays  it  down.  His  object  was  to  convince  the  people  of  his  own 
party,  that  they  had  no  right  to  regard  those  brethren  as  graceless, 
and  on  that  ground  refuse  to  unite  with  them.*  Mr.  Tennent, 
therefore,  being  judge,  the  denunciation  of  his  ministerial  brethren 
was  "  an  evil  pregnant  with  pride,  malice,  and  mischief,  though 
perhaps  not  perceived  or  intended ;  an  evil  which,  under  a  cloak 
of  misguided  zeal  for  God,  Christian  liberty,  and  superior  attain- 
ments in  knowledge  and  religion,  rebelliously  opposes  the  clearest 
dictates  of  reason  and  humanity,  and  the  plainest  laws  of  revealed 
religion  ;  an  evil  that,  under  the  pretext  of  kindness  and  piety, 
cruelly  rends  our  neighbour's  character,  saps  the  foundation  of  the 

*  Irenicum,  p.  78. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  185 

church's  peace,  and  turns  its  union,  order,  and  harmony,  into  the 
wildest  confusion  of  ungoverned  anarchy,  schism,  prejudice,  and 
hate."* 

The  alienation  of  feeling  which  existed  among  the  members  of 
the  Synod,  is  not  to  be  attributed  solely  or  even  principally  to  the 
denunciatory  spirit  of  some  of  the  leading  preachers  of  that  day. 
It  was  in  a  great  measure  due  to  the  intrusion  into  the  congrega- 
tions of  settled  ministers,  the  exhortations  given  to  the  people  to 
leave  their  pastors,  when  believed  to  be  unconverted  or  contentedly 
unsuccessful,  and  the  erection  of  separate  meetings.  This  was  of 
all  grounds  of  complaint  against  the  New  Brunswick  brethren,  the 
one  most  frequently  urged.  There  is  abundant  evidence  that  the 
complaint  was  well  founded.  The  fact  that  the  Synod  twice  enacted 
a  rule  against  such  intrusions,  is  evidence  that  the  evil  was  then 
felt ;  and  the  opposition  of  the  New  Brunswick  gentlemen  to  the 
rule,  shows  that  they  "  abhorred  all  confinement  in  preaching  the 
gospel."  Mr.  Blair,  in  the  paper  read  before  the  Synod  in  1740, 
said  to  his  brethren,  "  Unless  we  can  see  hopeful  encouraging 
appearances  of  a  work  of  God's  converting  grace  among  such  min- 
isters, we  believe  we  shall  find  ourselves  obliged  in  duty  to  our 
glorious  Lord,  to  answer  the  invitations  and  desires  of  people  groan- 
ing under  the  oppression  of  a  dead  unfaithful  ministry,  by  going 
to  preach  to  them  wherever  they  are."f  Mr.  Tennent,  in  his  Not- 
tingham sermon,  teaches  that  it  is  both  lawful  and  expedient  for 
the  people  to  forsake  the  ministry  of  unconverted  men.  This  he 
confirms  by  various  arguments,  and  defends  from  various  objec- 
tions, and  then  exhorts  the  people  to  act  accordingly,  saying,  "  Let 
those  who  live  under  the  ministry  of  dead  men,  whether  they  have 
the  form  of  religion  or  not,  repair  to  the  living."  Nearly  one-third 
of  the  whole  discourse,  six  pages  out  of  twenty,  was  devoted  to 
this  general  subject.  The  Presbytery  of  Donegal  state  that,  in 
consequence  of  these  divisive  schemes,  "  most  congregations  in 
the  country  are  reduced  to  such  disorder  and  confusion,  that  the 
preaching  of  the  word  is  despised  and  forsaken,  the  ministers  of 

*  Irenicum,  p.  55. 

f  Quoted  at  length  in  Thompson's  Government  of  the  Church,  p.  46,  &e. 


136  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  gospel  are  contemned  and  evil  spoken  of,  and  their  public  min 
istrations  and  private  conduct  misrepresented  and  traduced."*  At 
the  meeting  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  on  the  second  day 
after  the  schism,  applications  were  made  for  supplies  from  about 
eighteen  places,  almost  all  of  which  were  out  of  the  bounds  of  the 
Presbytery,  and  came  for  the  most  part  from  fragments  of  old  con- 
gregations. There  is,  therefore,  no  doubt  that  separations  did 
extensively  take  place,  and  that  they  were  fostered  by  Mr.  Tennent 
and  his  friends.  Indeed  Mr.  Tennent  himself  admits  this.  In  his 
remarks  on  the  Protest,  he  says,  "  That  there  have  been  some 
divisions  consequent  on  our  preaching  in  some  places,  we  acknow- 
ledge, "f 

The  answers  which  he  gives  to  the  charge  of  having  encouraged 
the  people  to  forsake  their  pastors,  are  not  a  little  remarkable.  He 
sometimes  admits  it,  sometimes  denies  it,  and  sometimes  evades  it. 
During  the  revival  he  not  only  asserted  the  doctrine  complained  of, 
but  was  prepared  to  justify  it.  Thus  in  1741,  in  answer  to  the 
charge  of  intrusion  and  separation,  he  says,  "  What  is  proper  in 
ordinary  cases  may  be  prejudicial  in  extraordinaries.  When  a 
church  is  stocked  with  a  sound,  faithful,  and  lively  ministry,  no 
doubt  those  rules  respecting  ministers  keeping  within  the  bounds 
of  their  respective  charges,  until  they  are  invited  in  an  orderly 
manner  to  go  elsewhere,  may  be  of  service.  But,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  a  number  of  ministers  are  either  unsound  in  doctrine,  or 
unfaithful  and  contentedly  unsuccessful  in  their  work,  then  is  it  not 
lawful  to  suspend  the  aforesaid  rules  for  a  season  ?"J  Again  :  "  No 
doubt  there  is  a  relation  between  a  pastor  and  his  people,  but  the 
design  of  this  being  to  promote  their  good,  we  think  it  unreason- 
able that  it  should  subsist  to  the  prejudice  of  that  which  it  was 
designed  to  secure.  However,  in  ordinary  cases,  we  think  it  to  be 
the  people's  duty  to  make  regular  application  to  their  pastors  to  go 
where  they  can  get  the  most  benefit.  But  when  ministers  conspire 
to  oppose  the  work  and  servants  of  God,  in  the  most  flagrant  man- 
ner, we  see  no  harm  in  this  case,  in  their  using  an  extraordinary 

*  Minutes  for  December,  1740.  f  Remarks,  &c.  p.  8. 

%  Remarks,  &c,  p.  19- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  137 

method."*  And  elsewhere  in  still  stronger  language,  he  says,  when 
ministers  habitually  oppose  the  revival,  "  I  see  not  how  any  that 
fear  God  can  contentedly  sit  under  their  ministrations,  (if  they  per- 
sist as  aforesaid,)  without  becoming  accessary  to  their  crimson 
guilt. "f  It  was,  therefore,  at  that  time  his  opinion,  that  when 
ministers  were  unconverted,  or  contentedly  unsuccessful,  and  espe- 
cially if  they  opposed  the  revival,  it  was  the  duty  of  their  people 
to  leave  them. 

When,  however,  he  saw  how  these  principles  were  operating  in 
New  England, J  where  the  separatists  had  begun  to  break  off  from 
the  regular  pastors,  because  they  did  not  come  up  to  their  standard 
of  zeal  and  fidelity,  and  when  the  Moravians  had  begun  to  make 
inroads  upon  some  of  the  Presbyterian  churches,  he  in  a  measure 
altered  his  manner  of  speaking.  In  April,  1742,  he  preached 
several  sermons  in  New  York,  against  the  Moravians,  which,  to- 
gether with  an  Appendix,  were  soon  given  to  the  world.  In  these 
sermons  he  condemns  many  of  the  opinions  and  practices  of  which 
he  had  been  hitherto  considered  the  advocate.  Among  other  things, 
he  says,  "  It  is  an  instance  of  pride  to  despise  and  slight  ministers 
or  people  that  are  unconverted,  or  supposed  to  be  so."  "  The  prac- 
tice of  staying  at  home,  rather  than  going  to  hear  such  ministers, 
sound  in  principle  and  regular  in  practice,  as  are  judged  by  some 
to  be  unconverted,  is  unscriptural  and  of  dangerous  tendency,  in 
my  opinion,  for  it  hangs  the  whole  weight  of  the  public  worship  of 
God,  on  the  uncertain  judgment  of  men.  Though  unconverted 
ministers  are  not  likely  to  do  so  much  good  as  others,  yet  seeing 
that  many  of  them  doubtless  preach  the  same  word  of  God  which 
others  do,  why  may  not  a  sovereign  God,  who  permits  them  by  his 

*  Remarks  on  the  Protest,  p.  29. 

f  Letter  to  Franklin,  as  editor  of  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  and  published 
in  that  paper,  September  2,  1742. 

X  "The  passages  referred  to  in  the  Moravian  sermon  were  occasioned,"  he 
says,  "  by  reports  of  a  separating  disposition  obtaining  in  New  England ;  I 
was  informed  that  some  were  separating  from  the  ministry  of  such  as  were 
sound  in  principle,  regular  in  life,  and  approvers  of  God's  work  ;  and  that  some 
staid  at  home,  rather  than  they  would  hear  such,  merely  because  they  judged 
them  to  be  unconverted." — Examiner  Examined,  p.  90. 


138  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

providence  to  come  into  the  ministry,  bless  his  word  delivered  by 
them  to  the  good  of  mankind  ?"  The  inconsistency  between  these 
sentiments  and  those  elsewhere  advocated  by  Mr.  Tennent,  did  not 
escape  the  notice  of  his  opponents,  who  arrayed  the  conflicting 
assertions  in  parallel  columns.* 

This  attack  evidently  placed  Mr.  Tennent  in  considerable  diffi- 
culties. The  revival  and  the  excitements  by  which  it  was  attended, 
had  not  yet  subsided.  He  was  not  prepared,  therefore,  fully  and 
kindly  to  retract,  as  he  subsequently  did,  either  his  censorious  con- 
demnation of  his  brethren,  or  his  divisive  principles.  He  was  thus 
led  to  endeavour  to  reconcile  and  justify  both  classes  of  his  conflict- 
ing statements.  One  explanation  was  that,  in  the  sermons  against 
the  Moravians,  he  meant  to  condemn  the  practice  of  separating 
from  ministers  who  were  not  only  sound  and  regular,  but  also  "  fa- 
vourers of  God's  work,"  i.  e.  the  revival. f  But  this  last  qualifica- 
tion is  not  found  in  those  sermons.  He  condemns  separation  from 
sound  and  regular  pastors,  on  the  assumption  of  their  being  uncon- 
verted ;  and  to  this  he  exhorted  the  people  in  the  Nottingham  ser- 
mon. A  second  mode  of  explanation  was,  that  he  only  intended, 
in  the  Nottingham  sermon,  to  teach  that  the  people  might  apply 
for  a  regular  dismission  from  the  congregation  to  which  they  be- 
longed. As  the  pastor  might  leave  the  people,  so  the  people  might 
leave  the  pastor  in  a  regular  manner.!  He  says  he  intended  to 
enjoin  on  the  people  to  make  a  regular  application  to  the  pastor 

*  This  was  done  by  a  Boston  writer  calling  himself  Philalethes,  in  a  book 
entitled,  The  Examiner,  or  Gilbert  against  Tennent.     Boston,  1743. 

The  things  for  which  Mr.  Tennent  particularly  censures  the  Moravians,  are, 
1.  Censoriousness ;  speaking  reproachfully  of  all  the  reformed  churcnes.  2. 
Dividing  congregations,  and  "  scattering  Christ's  poor  sheep."  3.  Thrusting 
ignorant  novices  into  the  ministry.  4.  For  their  slight  and  sudden  conversions, 
done  in  a  moment.  "What,"  he  asks,  "is  the  Moravian  faith,  but  a  sorry 
mushroom  of  a  night's  growth?"  5.  For  addressing  themselves  to  the  affec- 
tions rather  than  to  the  understandings  of  the  people,  and  endeavouring  to  gain 
over  the  young,  the  ignorant,  and  females.  "  Whom  do  they  imitate  in  attack- 
ing the  weaker  part  of  man,  viz. :  the  passions,  and  the  weaker  sex  first,  but 
Ihe  devil,  the  father  of  lies  and  of  errors?" 

f  Examiner  Examined,  p.  90.  t  Ibid.  p.  26. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  139 

and  session  for  leave  to  go  elsewhere,  assigning  their  reasons  for  so 
doing.  "  If  these  reasons  are  not  accounted  valid,  and  the  case  be 
really  so,  they  ought  to  desist.  But  if  they  are  wronged  they 
ought  to  appeal  to  a  higher  judicatory ;  but  if  the  case  should  so 
happen,  that  after  every  appeal  they  can  make,  and  the  most  hum- 
ble and  impartial  examination  of  the  affair,  they  firmly  think  they 
are  wronged,  and  conscience-bound  in  the  matter,  they  ought  to 
judge  for  themselves  and  act  according  to  their  consciences."* 
That  this  interpretation  of  his  sermon  is  at  variance  with  its  lan- 
guage need  hardly  be  remarked.  It  is  no  less  obviously  inconsis- 
tent with  the  other  explanation,  to  wit,  that  the  people  ought  not 
to  leave  their  ministers,  whether  converted  or  not,  provided  they 
favoured  the  revival ;  but  if  they  opposed  it,  it  was  a  great  sin  to 
adhere  to  them.  And  it  is  certain  the  above  interpretation  was 
never  put  upon  his  sermon,  either  by  his  friends  or  opponents. 
The  separatists  did  not  wait  to  apply  to  one  judicatory  after  an 
other,  but  went  off  without  asking  or  desiring  leave. 

Mr.  Tennent  sometimes  goes  still  further,  and  denies  that  he 
ever  encouraged  separations.  In  reference  to  this  charge,  he  says, 
"  It  is  false ;  there  is  not  a  word  in  that  (Nottingham)  sermon 
which  encourages  separate  meetings  from  any  ministry,  merely 
because  they  are  unconverted."  Having  made  a  similar  denial 
before,  his  opponents  said  it  was  a  notorious  falsehood,  and  that 
the  whole  country  knew  that  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press  he  had 
encouraged  the  people  to  forsake  their  ministry.  This  statement, 
he  says,  "  is  a  dreadful  instance  of  effronted  impiety.  0  shame  ! 
what  sort  of  men  are  these  who  not  only  assert  an  egregious  false- 
hood, but  appeal  to  the  whole  country  to  prove  it !  To  confront 
their  charge,  I  do  appeal  to  the  numerous  multitudes,  wherever  I 
have  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ,  if  what  they  alleged  be  not  a 
groundless  and  crimson  calumny,  which  those  enemies  of  the  power 
of  religion  do  impute  to  me.  It  is  the  necessity  of  their  wretched 
cause,  that  urges  those  unhappy  men  to  take  such  sinful  and  scan- 
dalous methods,  in  order  to  cloak  their  horrible  wickedness  in  op- 
posing God's  work,  which  has  been  the  real  cause  of  the  divisions 

*  Examiner  Examined,  pp.  21,  22. 


140  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

subsisting  among  us ;  which  they,  without  foundation,  ascribe  to 
ice."  *  This  denial  is  so  hearty  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  its  sin- 
cerity. It  is,  however,  no  less  impossible  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the 
charge.  His  Nottingham  sermon  not  only  teaches  that  it  is  law- 
ful and  expedient  to  leave  the  ministry  of  natural  men,  but  it 
argues  the  point,  enjoins  it  as  a  duty  commanded  by  Scripture,  and 
earnestly  exhorts  his  hearers  to  the  performance  of  it.  The  same 
thing  is  taught  over  and  over  in  this  very  book,  which  contains  the 
above  denial. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  Tennent,  like  other  vehement  men,  often  said 
more  than  he  meant.  He  acted  more  from  feeling  than  from  prin- 
ciple. When  he  thought  of  the  people  desirous  of  fervent  preach- 
ing, sitting  under  cold  and  lifeless  ministrations,  his  soul  caught 
fire,  and  he  urged  them  to  leave  their  sapless  preachers,  and  justi- 
fied their  doing  so.  But  when  he  saw  rash  enthusiasts,  who  thought 
all  persons  dead  but  themselves,  scattering  the  congregations  of 
pious  men,  he  denounced  their  conduct,  and  was  obliged  to  lay 
down  a  canon  which  condemned  his  own  course.  That  canon  was, 
that  we  have  no  right  to  regard  or  treat  as  graceless  those  who  are 
sound  in  essential  doctrines  and  regular  in  life.  Mr.  Tennent  and 
his  friends  had  grievously  offended  against  this  rule.  They  not 
only  had  pronounced  such  men  to  be  unconverted,  but  had  acted 
on  the  assumption  of  their  being  so,  and  treated  them  as  unfit  for 
their  offices.  It  may  easily  be  conceived  what  a  state  of  things 
would  be  produced  by  some  half-dozen  ministers  assuming  the  pre- 
rogative of  judging  of  the  hearts  of  their  brethren,  denouncing 
them  as  unconverted,  entering  their  congregations,  exhorting  their 
people  to  leave  them,  and  every  where  erecting  new  congregations. 
This  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  did  very  extensively ;  and  this, 
more  than  any  thing  else,  was  the  cause  of  the  schism.  It  was  in 
fact  schism  itself,  in  its  worst  form.  As  might  have  been  expected, 
this  conduct  called  forth  loud  complaints  of  the  arrogant  assump- 
tion of  power  on  the  part  of  a  few  men,  to  judge  and  condemn 
their  brethren ;    of  the  injustice   of   condemning  them  without  a 

*  Examiner  Examined,  pp.  88,  89. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  ,  141 

trial   before   a   competent  tribunal;    and  of  the  grievous  injuries 
which  were  thus  inflicted  upon  them  and  their  churches. 

These  complaints  were  sometimes  brought  before  the  Presbyte- 
ries, though  seldom  to  any  good  purpose.  Thus  in  1740  a  repre- 
sentation was  made  to  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  in  reference  to 
Mr.  Blair,  for  intruding  into  the  congregations  of  several  of  their 
members ;  and  Mr.  John  Thompson  was  requested  to  go  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  to  which  Mr.  Blair  belonged,  and  call 
their  attention  to  the  case.*  The  same  year  Mr.  Alison  presented 
a  complaint  on  the  same  ground  against  Mr.  Alexander  Creaghead, 
which  was  accompanied  with  "  a  supplication  from  several  members 
of  Mr.  Creaghead's  congregation,  complaining  of  his  mal-conduct 
in  several  particulars."  The  Presbytery  met  at  Middle  Octarara 
to  examine  these  charges.  Besides  the  complaint  of  Mr.  Alison 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  Mr.  Creaghead  was  charged  by 
some  of  his  own  congregation,  1.  With  absenting  himself  from 
Presbytery.  2.  With  imposing  new  terms  of  communion  on  his 
people  at  the  baptism  of  their  children.  3.  With  excluding  a  per- 
son from  the  communion,  because  he  seemed  to  be  opposed  to  his 
new  methods.  4.  With  asserting  that  the  ministers  of  Christ 
ought  not  to  be  confined  to  any  particular  charge.  The  new  term 
of  communion  here  complained  of  was,  no  doubt,  the  adoption  of 
the  solemn  league  and  covenant,  which  it  seems  he  and  Mr.  John 
Cross  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  were  often  in  the  habit 
of  imposing  on  their  people. f  When  the  Presbytery  were  about 
to  proceed  with  this  case,  they  "  were  interrupted  by  the  people 
rising  into  a  tumult,  and  railing  at  the  members  in  the  most  scur- 
rilous and  opprobrious  manner ;  so  that  having  concluded  with 
prayer,  they  were  obliged  to  adjourn  to  another  place." 

*  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  p.  203. 

t  Thompson's  Government  of  the  Church. — "  Some  of  them  preach  up  the 
national  and  solemn  league  and  covenants ;  and  give  the  breach  of  those  cove- 
nants as  the  great  and  principal  cause  of  the  great  decay  of  religion  among 
us.  Others  of  the  same  party  never  mention  it,  that  I  hear  of.  Some  of  them 
oblige  parents  to  these  covenants  at  the  baptism  of  their  children ;  and  others 
do  not.  Yea,  the  same  persons  sometimes  oblige  parents  to  these  covenants, 
and  sometimes  do  not ;  as  for  instance  Mr.  Alexander  Creaghead,  and  Mr. 
John  Cross."  p.  43. 


142  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

The  Presbytery  in  their  account  of  this  trial,  if  trial  it  can  be 
called,  state  that  when  they  came  to  the  church,  they  found  Mr. 
Creaghead  preaching  on  the  text,  '  Let  them  alone,  they  be  blind 
leaders  of  the  blind;'  and  that  his  sermon  was  almost  a  continued 
invective  against  such  as  he  called  pharisee  preachers,  and  against 
the  Presbytery  in  particular,  asserting  that  they  were  given  over  to 
judicial  hardness  of  heart  and  impenitency.  After  the  sermon  Mr. 
Creaghead  invited  the  congregation,  which  was  very  large,  to  the 
tent,  where  they  were  entertained  with  the  reading  of  a  paper 
which  he  called  his  defence,  containing  the  most  slanderous  re- 
proaches against  the  members  of  the  Presbytery,  some  of  whom 
were  mentioned  by  name.  This  paper  was  read  by  Mr.  David  Alex- 
ander and  Mr.  Samuel  Finley,*  and  the  Presbytery  themselves 
were  summoned  to  attend. 

The  next  day,  when  the  Presbytery  were  about  to  inquire  into 
the  complaints  against  Mr.  Creaghead,  he  came  in,  accompanied  by 
Mr.  Alexander  and  Mr.  Finley,  and  insisted  upon  again  reading 
his  defence.  The  Presbytery  requested  him  first  to  allow  the 
charges  to  be  presented.  This  he  refused  to  do,  and  insisted  that 
the  defence  should  be  read  first.  Whereupon  Messrs.  Alexander 
and  Finley  ascended  the  pulpit  and  read  the  paper  which  had  been 
re-ad  to  the  people  the  day  before.  In  the  beginning  of  this  paper 
Mr.  Creaghead  utterly  declined  the  authority  of  the  Presbytery, 
and  protested  against  their  proceeding  with  the  case,  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  all  his  accusers.  In  view  of  the  several  complaints 
against  Mr.  C,  and  of  his  contumacy  and  disorderly  conduct,  the 
Presbytery  suspended  him  from  the  ministry  until  their  next  meet- 
ing ;  directing,  however,  that  if  he  should  signify  his  sorrow  for 
his  conduct  to  any  member,  that  member  should  notify  the  mode- 
rator, who  was  to  call  the  Presbytery  together  to  consider  his  ac- 
knowledgment and  take  off  the  suspension. f 

There  were,  at  this  time,  in  that  Presbytery,  together  with 
several  excellent  men,  a  few  members  from  Ireland,  whose  conduct 
brought  a  reproach  upon  the  whole  body,  but  who  were  soon  sus- 

*  Mr.  Finley  was  at  this  time  a  licentiate  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Bruns- 
wick, f  Minutes  of  Donegal  Presbytery,  pp.  205,  6 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  143 

pencled  and  discarded  by  their  brethren.  The  presence  of  those 
members,  unconvicted,  and  even  unaccused  as  yet,  could  afford  little 
justification  for  the  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Creaghead,  in  absenting 
himself  from  the  Presbytery,  disregarding  their  authority,  and  es- 
pecially in  reading  his  calumnious  charges  against  the  whole  body 
to  a  promiscuous  and  excited  audience.* 

The  Presbytery  had  a  difficulty  also  with  Mr.  David  Alexander. 
In  October  1740,  he  was  cited  to  answer  a  complaint  for  preaching 
in  a  disorderly  manner  in  Mr.  Black's  congregation,  and  for  absent- 
ing himself  time  after  time  from  the  Presbytery,  without  excuse. f 
When  the  Presbytery  met  in  December  following,  he  assigned  as 
the  reasons  of  his  absence,  bodily  weakness,  and  certain  scruples 
which  he  had  in  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  Presbytery.  One 
of  these  scruples  was,  their  "  opposing  the  work  of  God,  in  seeming 
to  condemn  the  crying  out  of  people  at  sermons,  and  opposing  those 
ministers  who  seem  instrumental  in  carrying  on  these  things." 
Another  was,  their  too  superficial  examination  of  candidates.  For 
others,  it  appears,  he  referred  the  Presbytery  to  the  paper  above- 
mentioned  as  Mr.  Creaghead's  defence.  He  added,  however,  that 
he  was  still  willing  to  consider  himself  a  member  of  the  Presbytery. 
To  this  the  Presbytery  replied  that  they  would  recognize  him  as  a 
member,  provided  he  "  acknowledged  his  sinful  disorder  in  absent- 
ing himself  from  Presbytery  on  account  of  these  scruples,  without 
having  remonstrated  them  to  the  Presbytery ;  and  provided  he  pro- 
mised not  to  absent  himself  in  future,  on  account  of  these  or  any 
other  scruples,  in  the  same  manner,  without  previously  intimating 
them  to  the  Presbytery  in  a  judicial  way."!     With   these  provisos 

*  Mr.  Tennent,  in  1743,  speaking  of  this  gentleman,  says,  "  There  is  one 
indeed,  who  I  hope  is  a  pious  man,  Mr.  Alexander  Creaghead  by  name,  who 
was  formerly  in  a  state  of  union  with  us,  but  having  more  zeal  and  positive- 
ness  than  knowledge  and  judgment,  has  schismatically  broken  communion 
with  us,  and  adopted  the  rigid  Cameronian  scheme.  He  is  indeed  tinged 
with  an  uncharitable  and  party  spirit,  to  the  great  prejudice  of  real  religion 
in  some  places,  this  way.  May  the  Almighty  forgive  him,  and  rectify  his 
judgment.  His  late  and  present  divisive  conduct  we  utterly  detest  and  dis- 
claim."—  Examiner  Examined,  p.  120. 

t  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  p.  203.  t  Ibid.  p.  207. 


144  PRESBYTERIAN    CIFB'CI 

he  refused  to  comply,  and  the  other  part  of  the  charge  against  him 
not  being  immediately  taken  up,  he  left  the  place.  The  Presbytery 
then  determined  to  cite  him  to  attend  their  next  meeting,  to  answer 
for  his  disorderly  conduct  in  endorsing  and  reading  the  charges 
against  the  Presbytery,  contained  in  Mr.  Creaghead's  defence,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  Presbytery,  and  before  a  large  congregation  ; 
and  for  leaving  the  Presbytery  after  having  said  in  a  boasting  man- 
ner, that  the  real  charge  against  him  was  preaching  in  Mr.  Black's 
congregation,  which  he  acknowledged,  and  would  do  it  again  and 
again.  This  citation  he  refused  to  answer.*  He  was  cited  a  second 
time  to  answer  the  above  charges,  and  afama  clamosa  charge  of  in- 
temperance. In  consequence  of  this  second  call,  he  appeared  at  the 
meeting  held  May,  1741,  and  "  by  taking  the  pulpit  prevented  the 
moderator,  who  had  prepared  to  preach."  He  gave  as  his  reason 
for  not  answering  the  first  citation,  that  the  Presbytery  had  cut 
him  oif  from  being  a  member ;  and  that  he  told  the  person  citing 
him,  that  he  had  appealed  to  the  Synod.  With  regard  to  the  charge 
of  intemperance,  he  said  it  arose  from  what  occurred  at  a  funeral, 
where  he  acknowledged  "  he  had  drunk  some  more  than  was  neces- 
sary."! The  Presbytery  acquitted  him  of  the  charge  of  intemper- 
ance to  the  extent  reported ;  but  on  account  of  his  acknowledged 
indiscretion,  and  of  his  disorderly  conduct,  and  reproaching  the 
Presbytery,  they  said  they  eould  not  regard  him  as  a  member  "  un- 
til we  be  satisfied  as  to  these  pieces  of  his  disregardful  conduct  to- 
wards us,  and  refusing  to  submit  to  the  government  of  Christ's 
church  in  our  hands.  At  the  same  time  we  cannot  but,  with  deep 
sorrow  of  heart,  bewail  the  unhappy,  divided,  and  distracted  state 
of  this  poor  church,  through  the  uncharitable  opposition  of  both 
ministers  and  people  against  one  another."! 

These  are  melancholy  scenes  to  oceur  in  the  midst  of  a  great 
revival  of  religion.  Such,  however,  was  the  tumult  excited  in  the 
public  mind,  that,  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  every  thing 
seemed  to  get  into  confusion,  and  even  good  men  were  alienated 
from  each  other.     A  portion  of  the  ministers  of  the  Synod  having 

*  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  p.  212.  f  Ibid.  p.  224. 

X  Ibid.  p.  225. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  145 

lost  confidence  in  the  majority  of  their  brethren,  did  not  hesitate  to 
denounce  them  as  unconverted  men,  and  exhort  their  people  to  leave 
them.  The  consequence  was,  that  many  congregations  were  broken 
up,  and  many  more  divided.  The  Synod  of  1741,  therefore,  met 
under  circumstances  very  unfavourable  to  peace  and  union.  The 
majority  felt  themselves  grievously  injured,  both  in  character  and 
in  their  pastoral  relations.  It  is  no  wonder  then  that  they  came 
together  determined,  if  possible,  to  put  a  stop  to  the  prevailing 
disorders;  nor,  considering  their  state  of  mind,  is  it  surprising  that 
they  mistook  their  remedy  and  placed  themselves  in  the  wrong. 

The  Synod  met  in  Philadelphia,  May  2,  1741.  Mr.  Pierson, 
the  moderator  for  the  preceding  year,  being  absent,  the  sessions 
were  opened  with  a  sermon  by  Mr.  Andrews,  who  was  elected  mo- 
derator, and  Mr.  Boyd  was  appointed  clerk.  The  following  minis- 
ters were  in  attendance,  viz. :  From  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 
George  Gillespie,  Robert  Cathcart,  Charles  Tennent,  Francis  Ali- 
son, Alexander  Hucheson,  and  Samuel  Blair.  From  the  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia,  Jedediah  Andrews,  Robert  Cross,  Daniel 
Elmer,  Francis  McHenry,  Richard  Treat,  and  William  Tennent, 
Sen'r.  From  the  Presbytery  of  Lewes,  James  Martin,  and  Robert 
Jamison.  From  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  Eleazar  Wales, 
Gilbert  Tennent,  and  William  Tennent,  Jun'r.  From  the  Presby- 
tery of  Donegal,  John  Thompson,  Adam  Boyd,  John  Elder,  Rich- 
ard Sanchy,  Samuel  Cavin,  Samuel  Thompson,  Alexander  Creag- 
head,  and  David  Alexander.  All  the  members  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  were  absent. 

The  first  matter  which  occasioned  difficulty  was  the  case  of  Mr. 
Alexander  Creaghead.  Having  been  suspended  by  his  own  Pres- 
bytery, it  would  appear  to  be  a  matter  of  course,  that  he  should 
not  take  his  seat  as  a  member  of  Synod,  until  that  sentence  was 
reversed.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  been  enrolled  from  the  first 
as  a  regular  member.  As  he  had  not  submitted  to  a  trial  before 
the  inferior  judicatory,  according  to  ordinary  rules  of  proceeding, 
he  had  no  right  to  appeal  to  a  higher.  This  point,  however,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  waived  in  his  favour,  and  the  Synod  took  up  the 
question  of  his  right  to  a  seat,  "  and  after  much  discourse  upon  it, 
vol.  n. — 10 


146  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  a  paper  of  Mr.  Creaghead  being  read,  the  Synod  deferred  the 
further  consideration  of  it."  In  the  afternoon  the  case  was  re- 
sumed, when  "  Mr.  Creaghead  presented  another  paper,  which  was 
read,  and  after  debating  on  that  business,  the  Synod  agreed  that 
this  and  the  former  paper  be  perused  by  the  Donegal  Presbytery, 
in  order  for  trial  against  to-morrow  afternoon."'  •  The  next  minute 
in  relation  to  the  subject,  states,  that  "  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal, 
as  appointed,  began  their  reply  to  Mr.  Creaghead's  papers,  in  seve- 
ral particulars,  but  being  late  it  was  deferred."  The  next  morn- 
ing "  the  above  affair  continued,  and  a  great  deal  of  discourse 
maintained  upon  it,  when  the  Synod  deferred  the  further  consider- 
ation of  it."  This  was  on  Saturday  the  30th  of  May;  on  Mon- 
day the  1st  of  June  the  schism  occurred,  and  of  course  the  subject 
was  dropt. 

It  appears  there  were  two  points  which  occupied  the  attention  of 
the  Synod.  The  one  was  the  difficulty  between  Mr.  Creaghead 
and  his  Presbytery,  and  the  other  the  complaint  of  Mr.  Alison 
against  Mr.  Creaghead  for  intruding  into  his  congregation.  As  to 
the  former  there  seems  to  have  been  little  progress  made  in  adjust- 
ing the  matter.  It  was  proposed  that  a  committee  should  be  sent 
down  to  try  the  case.  Mr.  Creaghead  insisted,  if  that  were  done, 
the  majority  of  the  committee  should  be  of  the  "New  Brunswick 
party."  To  this  the  other  side  objected,  and  in  their  turn  opposed 
the  appointment  of  certain  individuals  who  had  been  nominated.* 

The  other  point  was  most  disputed,  and  seems  to  have  brought 
matters  to  a  crisis.  Mr.  Alison  contended,  that  as  he  had  regu- 
larly tabled  charges  against  Mr.  Creaghead  before  the  Presbytery 
of  Donegal,  for  intruding  into  his  congregation,  "  to  rend  and  di- 
vide it  against  his  mind,  the  mind  of  the  session,  and  the  declared 
opinion  of  the  congregation  in  general ;"  and  as  Mr.  Creaghead 
had  refused  to  submit  to  a  trial  before  the  Presbytery,  it  was  his 
undoubted  right  to  bring  the  complaint  before  the  Synod  and  have 
the  matter  tried  there.  He  urged  this  the  rather  because  there 
was  no  need  of  testimony  in  the  case,  as  "  Mr.  Creaghead  publicly 
acknowledged  the  whole  fact"  complained  of;  and  because  an  op- 

*  Refutation  of  Mr.  Tennent's  remarks  on  the  Protest,  pp.  37,  38. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  147 

portunity  would  thus  be  offered  to  the  Synod,  and  especially  to  the 
New  Brunswick  party,  to  show  how  far  they  were  willing  to  con- 
demn this  disorderly  intrusion  into  settled  congregations,  and  to 
make  proposals  for  peace.*  Mr.  Tennent  and  his  friends  resisted 
the  complaint's  being  entertained  "  merely  because  Donegal  Pre? 
bytery  did  not  enter  it  on  their  records  as  a  prime  article."  It  is 
difficult  to  see  the  force  of  this  objection.  The  complaint  did  not 
come  to  the  Synod  through  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  but  directly 
from  Mr.  Alison.  The  complaint  as  presented  to  the  Presbytery 
had  proved  inoperative,  for  though  the  disorder  complained  of  was 
one  of  the  several  grounds  on  which  the  Presbytery  suspended 
Mr.  Creaghead,  yet  he  not  only  refused  to  answer  the  charge,  but 
had  disregarded  their  sentence.  It  seems  rather  unfair  that  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  should  be  considered  a  nullity  as  it  re- 
garded Mr.  Creaghead,  and  as  valid  in  satisfying  Mr.  Alison's  com- 
plaint. He  had  applied  to  the  Presbytery  for  redress  and  had  ob- 
tained none ;  for  its  authority  had  been  denied  and  its  sentence 
disregarded.  When,  therefore,  in  due  course  he  applied  to  the 
Synod,  he  had  reason  to  expect  to  be  heard.  Resisting  this  course 
on  technical  grounds  was  certainly  very  unfortunate,  as  an  oppor- 
tunity was  thus  lost  of  satisfying  the  minds  of  the  aggrieved  mem- 
bers, that  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  would  not  deliberately 
sanction  "the  practice  of  breaking  in  upon  and  dissolving  pastoral 
relations  in  such  an  unscriptural  and  anti-presbyterial  way."  The 
result  of  this  attempt  to  bring  up  the  matter  in  complaint,  the 
majority  of  the  Synod  say,  "  put  us  out  of  all  hopes  of  obtaining 
peace  with  our  brethren  upon  such  terms  as  are  founded  on  the 
word  of  God,  and  our  Presbyterian  constitution." 

This  last  effort  at  accommodation  having  failed,  the  Rev.  Robert 
Cross,  pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church   in  Philadelphia, 
rose  and  read  the  following  Protestation,  viz. : 
"  Rev.  Fathers  and  Brethren  : 

"  We,  the  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  members  of  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  being  wounded  and  grieved  in  our  very  hearts,  at 

*  Refutation  of  Mr.  Tennent's  remarks  on  the  Protest,  pp.  39,  40 ;  also  th( 
Preface  to  the  printed  copy  of  the  Protest. 


148  PRESBYTERIAN     C  II  U  R  C  II 

the  dreadful  division?,  distractions,  and  convulsions,  which  all  of  a 
sudden  have  seized  this  infant  church  to  such  a  degree  that,  unless 
He  who  is  king  in  Zion,  do  graciously  and  seasonably  interfere  for 
our  relief,  she  is  in  no  small  danger  of  expiring  outright,  and  that 
quickly,  as  to  the  form,  order,  and  constitution  of  an  organized 
church,  which  hath  subsisted  for  above  thirty  years  past,  in  a  very 
great  degree  of  order  and  perfect  harmony  until  of  late ;  we  say, 
we  being  deeply  grieved  with  these  things,  which  lie  heavy  on  our 
spirits,  and  being  sensible  that  it  is  our  indispensable  duty  to  do 
what  lies  in  our  power,  in  a  lawful  way,  according  to  the  light  and 
directions  of  the  inspired  oracles,  to  preserve  this  swooning  church 
from  a  total  expiration  ;  and  after  the  deliberate  and  unprejudiced 
inquiry  into  the  causes  of  these  confusions,  which  rage  so  among 
us,  both  ministers  and  people,  we  evidently  seeing,  and  being  fully 
persuaded  in  our  judgments  that,  besides  our  misimprovement  of, 
and  unfruitfulness  under,  gospel  light,  liberty,  and  privileges,  the 
great  decay  of  practical  godliness  in  the  life  and  power  of  it,  and 
many  abounding  immoralities  ;  we  say,  besides  these  our  sins,  which 
we  judge  to  be  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  present  doleful  distrac- 
tions, the  awful  judgments  we  now  suifer  under;  we  evidently  see 
that  our  protesting  brethren*  and  their  adherents  are  the  direct 
and  proper  cause  thereof,  by  their  unwearied,  unscriptural,  anti- 
presbyterial,  uncharitable  divisive  practices,  which  they  have  been 
pursuing  with  all  the  diligence  they  were  capable  of,  with  any  pro- 
bability of  success,  for  above  these  twelve  months  past  especially  ; 
besides  too  much  of  the  like  practices  for  some  years  before,  though 
not  with  such  barefaced  arrogance  and  boldness : 

"  And  being  fully  convinced  in  our  judgments,  that  it  is  our  duty 
to  bear  testimony  against  these  disorderly  proceedings,  according 
to  our  stations,  capacity,  and  trust  reposed  in  us  by  our  exalted 
Lord,  as  watchmen  on  the  walls  of  his  Zion,  we  having  endeavoured 
sincerely  to  seek  counsel  and  direction  from  God,  who  hath  pro- 
mised to  give  wisdom  to  those  who  ask  him  in  faith,  yea,  hath  pro- 

*  That  is,  the  brethren  who  protested  against  the  Synod's  act  respecting  the 
examination  of  candidates,  viz.:,  the  four  Tennents,  Mr.  Blair,  Mr.  Wale1, 
Mr.  John  Cross  and  Mr.  Creaghead. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  149 

raised  his  Holy  Spirit  to  lead  his  people  and  servants  into  all 
truth ;  and  being  clearly  convinced  in  our  consciences,  that  it  is  a 
duty  we  are  called  upon  in  this  present  juncture  of  affairs,  reve- 
rend fathers  and  brethren,  we  hereby  humbly  and  solemnly  pro- 
test, in  the  presence  of  the  great  and  eternal  God  and  his  elect 
angels,  as  well  as  in  the  presence  of  all  here  present,  and  particu- 
larly of  you,  reverend  brethren,  in  our  own  names,  and  in  the 
names  of  all,  both  ministers  and  people,  who  shall  adhere  to  us,  as 
follows : 

"  1.  We  protest  that  it  is  the  indispensable  duty  of  this  Synod 
to  maintain  and  stand  by  the  principles  of  doctrine,  worship,  and 
government  of  the  church  of  Christ,  as  the  same  are  summed  up 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms,  and  Directory  composed 
by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  as  being  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  which  this  Synod  have  owned,  acknowledged,  and  adopted, 
as  may  appear  from  our  synodical  records  of  the  years  1729,  1730, 
1736,  which  we  desire  to  be  read  publicly. 

"  2.  We  protest  that  no  person,  minister  or  elder,  should  be 
allowed  to  sit  and  vote  in  this  Synod,  who  hath  not  received, 
adopted,  or  subscribed  the  said  Confessions,  Catechisms,  and  Direc- 
tory, as  our  presbyteries  respectively  do,  according  to  our  last 
explication  of  the  adopting  act ;  or  who  is  either  accused  or  con- 
victed, or  may  be  convicted  before  this  Synod,  or  any  of  our  pres- 
byteries, of  holding  any  doctrine,  or  who  acts  and  persists  in  any 
practice  contrary  to  any  of  those  doctrines  or  rules  contained  in 
said  Directory,  or  contrary  to  any  of  the  known  rights  of  pres- 
bytery, or  orders  made  and  agreed  to  by  this  Synod,  and  which 
stand  yet  unrepealed ;  unless,  or  until  he  renounce  such  doctrine, 
and  being  found  guilty,  acknowledge,  confess,  and  profess  his  sor- 
row for  such  sinful  disorder,  to  the  satisfaction  of  this  Synod,  or 
such  inferior  judicatory  as  the  Synod  shall  appoint  or  empower  for 
that  purpose. 

"  3.  We  protest  that  our  protesting  brethren  have  at  present  no 
right  to  sit  and  vote  as  members  of  this  Synod,  having  forfeited 
their  right  of  being  accounted  members  of  it,  for  many  reasons,  a 
few  of  which  we  shall  mention  afterwards. 


150  PRESBYTERIAN     CIUJRCII 

"4.  We  protest,  that  if,  notwithstanding  this  our  protestation, 
those  brethren  be  allowed  to  sit  and  vote  in  this  Synod,  without 
giving  suitable  satisfaction  to  the  Synod,  and  particularly  to  us, 
who  now  enter  this  protestation,  and  to  those  who  shall  adhere  to 
us  in  it,  that  whatsoever  shall  be  done,  voted,  or  transacted  by 
them  contrary  to  our  judgment,  shall  be  of  no  force  or  obligation 
to  us ;  being  done  and  acted  by  a  judicatory  consisting  in  part  of 
members  who  have  no  authority  to  act  with  us  in  ecclesiastical 
matters. 

"  5.  We  protest,  that  if,  notwithstanding  this  our  protestation, 
and  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  it,  those  protesting  brethren, 
and  such  as  adhere  to  them,  or  support  or  countenance  them  in 
their  antipresbyterial  practices,  shall  continue  to  act  as  they  have 
done  this  last  year,  in  that  case  we,  and  as  many  as  have  clearness 
to  join  with  us  and  maintain  the  rights  of  this  judicatory,  shall  be 
accounted  in  no  wise  disorderly,  but  the  true  Presbyterian  church 
in  this  province  ;  and  they  shall  be  looked  upon  as  guilty  of  schism., 
and  the  breach  of  the  rules  of  Presbyterian  government,  which 
Christ  has  established  in  his  church,  which  we  are  ready  at  all 
times  to  demonstrate  to  the  world. 

"  Reverend  and  dear  brethren,  we  beseech  you  to  hear  us  with 
patience,  while  we  lay  before  you  as  briefly  as  we  can,  some  of  the 
reasons  that  move  us  thus  to  protest,  and  more  particularly,  why 
we  protest  against  our  protesting  brethren  being  allowed  to  sit  as 
members  of  this  Synod. 

"  1.  Their  heterodox  and  anarchical  principles  expressed  in  their 
Apology,*  pages  twenty-eight  and  thirty-nine,  where  they  expressly 
deny  that  presbyteries  have  authority  to  oblige  their  dissenting 
members,  or  that  synods  should  go  any  further  in  judging  of  ap- 
peals or  references,  &c,  than  to  give  their  best  advice ;  which  is 
plainly  to  divest  the  officers  and  judicatories  of  Christ's  kingdom 
of  all  authority,  (and  plainly  contradicts  the  thirty-first  article  of 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  section  three,  which  those  brethren  pre- 

*  That  is,  the  Apology  of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  for  not  obeying 
the  two  acts  of  Synod  respecting  itinerant  preaching,  and  the  examination  of 
sandidates,  which  was  presented  to  the  Synod,  May,  1739. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  151 

tend  to  adopt,)  agreeable  to  which  is  the  whole  superstructure  of 
arguments  which  they  advance  and  maintain  against  not  otily  our 
synodical  acts,  but  also  all  authority  to  make  any  acts  or  orders 
which  shall  bind  dissenting  members,  throughout  their  whole 
Apology. 

"  2.  Their  protesting  against  the  Synod's  act  in  relation  to  the 
examination  of  candidates,  together  with  their  proceeding  to  license 
and  ordain  men  to  the  ministry  in  opposition  to,  and  in  contempt 
of  the  said  act  of  Synod. 

"  3.  Their  making  irregular  irruptions  upon  the  congregations, 
to  which  they  have  no  immediate  relation,  without  order,  concur- 
rence, or  allowance  of  the  presbyteries,  or  ministers  to  which  such 
congregations  belong ;  thereby  sowing  the  seeds  of  division  among 
the  people,  and  doing  what  they  can  to  alienate  and  fill  their  minds 
with  unjust  prejudices  against  their  lawfully  called  pastors. 

"4.  Their  principles  and  practice  of  rash  judging  and  condemn- 
ing all  who  do  not  fall  in  with  their  measures,  both  ministers  and 
people,  as  carnal,  graceless,  and  enemies  of  the  work  of  God,  and 
what  not ;  as  appears  in  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent's  sermon  against 
unconverted  ministers,  and  his  and  Mr.  Blair's  papers  of  May  last, 
which  were  read  in  open  Synod ;  which  rash  judging  has  been  the 
constant  practice  of  our  protesting  brethren  and  their  irregular 
probationers,  for  above  these  twelve  months  past,  in  their  disorderly 
itinerations  and  preaching  through  our  congregations,  by  which, 
alas  for  it !  most  of  our  congregations,  through  weakness  and 
credulity,  are  sd  shattered  and  divided,  and  shaken  in  t"heir  prin- 
ciples, that  few  or  none  of  us  can  say  we  enjoy  the  comfort,  or 
have  the  success  among  our  people,  which  otherwise  we  might,  and 
which  we  enjoyed  heretofore. 

"  5.  Their  industriously  persuading  people  that  the  call  of  God, 
whereby  he  calls  men  to  the  ministry,  does  not  consist  in  their 
being  regularly  ordained  and  set  apart  to  the  work,  according  to 
the  instruction  and  rules  of  the  word ;  but  in  some  invisible  mo- 
tions and  workings  of  the  Spirit,  which  none  can  be  conscious  or 
sensible  of,  but  the  person  himself,  and  with  respect  to  which  he  is 
liable  to  be  deceived,  or  to  play  the  hypocrite.     That  the  gospel 


152  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

preached  in  truth  by  unconverted  ministers,  can  be  of  no  saving 
benefit  to  souls ;  and  their  pointing  out  such  ministers  whom  they 
condemn  as  graceless,  by  their  rash  judging  spirit,  they  effectually 
carry  the  point  with  the  poor  credulous  people,  who,  in  imitation 
of  their  example,  and  under  their  patronising,  judge  their  ministers 
to  be  graceless,  and  forsake  their  ministry  as  hurtful  rather  than 
profitable. 

"  6.  Their  preaching  the  terrors  of  the  law  in  such  a  manner 
and  dialect  as  has  no  precedent  in  the  word  of  God,  but  rather 
appears  to  be  borrowed  from  a  worse  dialect ;  and  so  industriously 
working  on  the  passions  and  affections  of  weak  minds  as  to  cause 
them  to  cry  out  in  a  hideous  manner,  and  to  fall  down  in  convul- 
sion-like fits,  to  the  marring  of  the  profiting  both  of  themselves 
and  others,  who  are  so  taken  up  in  seeing  and  hearing  these  odd 
symptoms,  that  they  cannot  attend  to,  or  hear  what  the  preacher 
says,  and  then  after  all,  boasting  of  these  things  as  the  work  of 
God,  which  we  are  persuaded  do  proceed  from  an  inferior  or  worse 
cause. 

"  7.  Their,  or  some  of  them,  preaching  and  maintaining  that  all 
true  converts  are  as  certain  of  their  gracious  state,  as  a  person  can 
be  of  what  he  knows  by  his  outward  senses ;  and  are  able  to  give  a 
narrative  of  the  time  and  manner  of  their  conversion ;  or  else  they 
conclude  them  to  be  in  a  natural  or  graceless  state ;  and  that  a 
gracious  person  can  judge  of  another's  gracious  state,  otherwise 
than  by  his  profession  and  life :  that  people  are  under  no  sacred 
tie  or  relation  to  their  own  pastors  lawfully  called,  but  may  leave 
them  when  they  please,  and  ought  to  go  where  they  think  they  get 
most  good. 

"  For  these  and  many  other  reasons,  we  protest  before  the  eter- 
nal God,  his  holy  angels,  and  you,  reverend  brethren,  and  before 
all  here  present,  that  these  brethren  have  no  right  to  be  acknow- 
ledged as  members  of  this  judicatory  of  Christ,  whose  principles 
and  practices  are  so  diametrically  opposite  to  our  doctrine  and 
principles  of  government  and  order,  which  the  great  King  of  the 
church  hath  laid  down  in  his  word.  How  absurd  and  monstrous 
must  that  union  be,  where  one  part  of  the  members  own  themselves 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  153 

obliged  in  conscience  to  the  judicial  determinations  of  the  whole, 
founded  on  the  word  of  God,  or  else  relinquish  membership ;  and 
another  part  declare  they  are  not  obliged  and  will  not  submit, 
unless  the  determinations  be  according  to  their  minds,  and  conse- 
quently will  submit  to  no  rules  in  making  of  which  they  are  in  the 
negative.  Again,  how  monstrously  absurd  is  it,  that  they  should 
so  much  as  desire  to  join  with  us,  or  we  with  them,  as  a  judicatory 
made  up  of  authoritative  officers  of  Jesus  Christ,  while  they  openly 
condemn  us  wholesale,  and  where  they  please  apply  their  con- 
demnatory sentences  to  particular  brethren  by  name,  without  judi- 
cial process,  or  proving  them  guilty  of  heresy  or  immorality,  and 
at  the  same  time  will  not  hold  Christian  communion  with  them. 
Again,  how  absurd  is  the  union,  while  some  of  the  members  of  the 
same  body,  which  meets  once  a  year  and  join  as  a  judicatory  of 
Christ,  do  all  the  rest  of  the  year,  what  they  can  openly  and  above- 
board,  to  persuade  the  people  and  flocks  of  their  brethren  to  sepa- 
rate from  their  own  pastors  as  graceless  hypocrites,  and  yet  they 
do  not  separate  from  them  themselves,  but  join  with  them  once 
every  year,  as  members  of  the  same  judicatory  of  Christ,  and 
oftener  when  presbyteries  are  mixed.  Is  it  not  unreasonable  stupid 
indolence  in  us  to  join  with  such  as  are  avowedly  tearing  us  to 
pieces  like  beasts  of  prey  ? 

"Again,  is  not  the  continuance  of  union  with  our  protesting 
brethren  absurd,  when  it  is  so  notorious  that  both  their  doctrine 
and  practice  are  so  directly  contrary  to  the  adopting  act,  whereby 
both  they  and  we  have  adopted  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms, 
and  Directory,  composed  by  the  Westminster  Assembly?  Finally, 
is  not  continuance  of  union  absurd  with  those  who  arrogate  to 
themselves  a  right  and  power  to  palm  and  obtrude  members  on  our 
Synod,  contrary  to  the  mind  and  judgment  of  the  body  ?  In  sum, 
a  continued  union,  in  our  judgment,  is  most  absurd  and  inconsis- 
tent, when  it  is  so  notorious  that  our  doctrine  and  principles  of 
church  government,  in  many  points,  are  not  only  diverse,  but 
directly  opposite.  For  how  can  two  walk  together,  except  they  be 
agreed  ? 

"  Reverend  fathers  and  brethren,  these  are  a  part  and  but  a  part 


154  PRESBYTERIAN     Cn  URCH 

of  our  reasons  why  we  protest  as  above,  and  which  we  have  only 
hinted  at,  but  have  forborne  to  enlarge  upon  them  as  we  might,  the 
matter  and  substance  of  them  are  so  well  known  to  you,  and  to  the 
whole  world  about  us,  that  we  judged  this  hint  sufficient  at  pre- 
sent, to  declare  our  serious  and  deliberate  judgment  in  the  matter; 
and  as  we  profess  ourselves  to  be  resolvedly  against  principles  and 
practice  both  of  anarchy  and  schism,  so  we  hope  that  God,  whom 
we  desire  to  serve  and  obey,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  minis- 
ters we  are,  will  both  direct  and  enable  us  to  conduct  ourselves  in 
these  trying  times,  so  as  our  consciences  will  not  reproach  us  as 
long  as  we  live.  Let  God  arise,  and  let  his  enemies  be  scattered ; 
but  let  the  righteous  be  glad,  yea,  let  them  exceedingly  rejoice. 
And  may  the  Spirit  of  life  and  comfort  revive  and  comfort  this 
poor  swooning  and  fainting  church,  quicken  her  to  spiritual  life, 
and  restore  her  to  the  exercise  of  true  charity,  peace,  and  order. 

"  Although  we  can  freely  and  from  the  bottom  of  our  hearts 
justify  the  divine  proceedings  against  us  in  suffering  us  to  fall  into 
these  confusions  for  our  sins,  and  particularly  for  the  great  decay 
of  the  life  and  power  of  godliness  among  all  ranks,  both  ministers 
and  people  ;  yet  we  think  it  to  be  our  present  duty  to  bear  testi- 
mony against  these  prevailing  disorders ;  judging,  that  to  give  way 
to  the  breaking  down  the  hedge  of  discipline  and  government  from 
about  Christ's  vineyard,  is  far  from  being  the  proper  method  of 
causing  his  tender  plants  to  grow  in  grace  and  fruitfulness.  As  it 
is  our  duty  in  our  stations,  without  delay,  to  set  about  a  reforma- 
tion of  the  evils  which  have  provoked  God  against  ourselves,  so  we 
judge  the  strict  observation  of  his  laws  of  government  and  order, 
and  not  the  breaking  of  them,  to  be  one  necessary  means  and 
method  of  this  necessary  and  much  to  be  desired  reformation. 
And  we  doubt  not,  but  when  our  God  sees  us  duly  humbled  and 
penitent  for  our  sins,  he  will  yet  return  to  us  in  mercy,  cause  us  to 
flourish  in  spiritual  life,  unity,  and  order  ;  though  perhaps  we  may 
not  live  to  see  it,  yet  this  testimony  that  we  now  bear,  may  be  of 
some  good  use  to  our  children  yet  unborn,  when  God  shall  arise 
and  have  mercy  upon  Zion.  Signed,  Robert  Cross,  John  Thomp- 
son, Francis  Alison,  Robert  Cathcart,  Richard  Sancky,  John  Elder, 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  155 

John  Craig,  Samuel  Cavin,  Samuel  Thompson,  Adam  Boyd,  James 
Martin,  and  Robert  Jamison,  ministers ;  and  Robert  Porter,  Ro- 
bert McKnight,  William  McCullock,  John  McEwen,  Robert  Craig, 
James  Kerr,  Alexander  McKnight,  elders." 

It  is  by  no  means  clear  how  this  protest  was  intended  to  operate, 
even  by  its  authors.  They  state,  1.  That  those  who  will  not  con- 
form to  the  constitution  of  the  Synod  have  no  right  to  sit  and  vote 
as  members.  2.  That  the  New  Brunswick,  or  former  protesting 
brethren,  had  violated  that  constitution,  both  by  the  avowal  of  prin- 
ciples inconsistent  with  it,  and  by  their  practice.  3.  This  being 
the  case  they  demanded  that  such  brethren  should  not  any  longer 
be  recognised  as  members.  It  is  evident  that  this  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  a  regular  judicial  process.  The  accused  were  not  even 
named.  They  are  sometimes  designated  as  the  "protesting  bre- 
thren ;"  but  that  phrase  would  not  include  either  Mr.  Treat,  or  Mr. 
David  Alexander,  who  were  both  included  in  the  accusation.*  Be- 
sides this,  the  protest  not  merely  presented  charges,  it  declared  the 
persons  implicated  to  be  guilty  and  determined  the  punishment. 
It  could  not,  therefore,  have  been  intended  as  the  commencement 
of  a  regular  process.  Perhaps  the  protestants  expected  that,  after 
this  solemn  declaration  of  their  sentiments,  the  Synod  would  by  a 
formal  vote  exclude  the  accused   brethren.     And  this,  according 

*  Mr.  Alexander  was  one  of  the  most  obnoxious  members  of  that  party,  as 
has  already  been  seen.  And  Mr.  Treat,  though  he,  as  appears  from  the 
minutes  of  Philadelphia,  quoted  above,  strenuously  supported  the  contested 
acts  of  the  Synod,  was  considered  as  one  of  the  "  ringleaders."  In  a  letter 
to  President  Clap  of  Yale  College,  written  in  1746,  the  Synod  say,  "  We  ex- 
cluded from  synodical  communion  the  four  Tennents,  Blair,  Creaghead,  (who 
has  since  turned  a  rigid  Covenanter  or  Cameronian,)  Treat,  and  Mr.  Wales; 
those,  especially  the  Tennents,  Blair,  and  Treat,  being  the  ringleaders  of  our 
divisions,  and  the  destroyers  of  good  learning  and  gospel  order  among  us." 
Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  iii.  p.  18. 

Mr.  Tennent  says  the  ministers  protested  against  were  William  Tennent, 
Sen'r,  Richard  Treat,  Samuel  Blair,  Charles  Tennent,  James  (David)  Alex- 
ander, Alexander  Creaghead,  William  Tennent,  Jun'r,  Eleazar  Wales-  John 
Rowland,  Gilbert  Tennent. — Remarks  on  the  Protest,  p.  33.  Oi  these,  how- 
ever, Mr.  Rowland  had  never  been  received  as  a  member,  Mr.  O^airv  AjaA  »as 
suspended,  and  Mr.  Alexander  disowned,  before  the  Synod  met 


156  PKE&BYTERIAN     CHURCH 

to  Mr.  Alison,  was  actually  done.  Of  such  vote,  however,  there 
is  no  record.  The  minutes  merely  state,  "  A  protestation  was 
brought  in  by  Mr.  Cross,  read  and  signed  by  several  members, 
which  is  kept  in  retentis.  Upon  this  it  was  canvassed  by  the  for- 
mer protesting  brethren,  whether  they  or  we  were  to  be  looked 
upon  as  the  Synod.  We  maintained  that  they  had  no  right  to  sit, 
whether  they  were  the  major  or  minor  number.  Then  they  mo- 
tioned we  should  examine  this  point,  and  that  the  major  number 
was  the  Synod.  They  were  found  to  be  the  minor  party,  and  upon 
this  they  withdrew.  After  this  the  Synod  proceeded  to  business."* 
This  counting  of  the  roll  Mr.  Alison  seems  to  understand  as  a  for- 
mal vote.  But  it  was  clearly  no  such  thing.  There  was  no  mo- 
tion and  no  vote,  but  an  irregular  mustering  of  parties  ;  after  which 
the  weaker  withdrew. 

It  is  probable  that  the  authors  of  the  protest  had  no  fixed  plan 
as  to  ulterior  measures ;  that  they  meant  merely  to  bring  the  con- 
troversy to  a  point,  some  way  or  other.  They,  therefore,  made  a 
formal  declaration  of  their  complaints,  and  an  avowal  of  their  pur- 
pose, that  unless  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  gave  them  satisfac- 
tion, one  party  or  the  other  must  leave  the  Synod.  By  what  pro- 
cess this  separation  was  to  be  effected,  they  left  to  be  determined 
by  circumstances.  This  seems  to  be  implied  in  what  is  said  by  the 
authors  themselves.  "After  reading  the  protest,"  they  say,  "the 
rejected  members  offered  nothing  like  a  pacific  overture,  or  a  satis- 
faction for  said  grievances,  but  instead  of  this  we  had  unchristian 
reproaches.  This  brought  the  affair  to  that  crisis  that  both  could 
not  sit  together  in  one  body,  but  one  of  them  must  withdraw,"! 
and  the  counting  the  roll  was  resorted  to  in  order  to  determine 
which  party  was  the  stronger. 

The  actual  course  which  matters  took  was  not  foreseen  nor  pro- 
vided for.  As  far  as  can  be  gathered  from  the  brief  and  contra- 
dictory accounts  of  this  eventful  meeting,  which  are  still  extant,  it 
appears  that  the  reading  of  the  protest,  avowing  as  it  did  a  fixed 
determination  to  have  either  a  redress  of  grievances,  or  a  separa- 
tion, produced  a  great  excitement.  As  soon  as  the  paper  was  read, 
*  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  p.  75.         f  Refutation  of  Remarks,  &c.  p.  134. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  157 

it  was  laid  on  the  table  for  the  signature  of  the  members.  This 
threw  the  assembly  into  disorder.  The  Brunswick  brethren  con- 
sidering the  signing  the  protest  as  of  itself  the  act  of  rejection, 
"  were  loathe  to  be  cast  out  hastily,  without  speaking  any  thing  in 
their  own  defence ;  but  their  efforts  to  speak  were  repulsed,  the 
house  being  confused,  one  spoke  one  thing,  and  another  another, 
and  sometimes  two  or  more  at  once,  so  that  it  is  hard  to  tell  what 
was  said."*  Some  cried  out  that  the  brethren  were  "solemnly 
protesting  gross  lies  before  Almighty  God ;"  others,  that  the 
"  elders  were  subscribing  what  they  had  never  heard  nor  consi- 
dered." f  In  the  midst  of  this  confusion  the  moderator  left  the 
chair.  J  As  soon  as  it  was  ascertained  that  less  than  a  majority  of 
the  whole  Synod  had  signed  the  protest, §  some  of  the  New  Bruns- 
wick brethren  demanded  that  as  the  protestors  were  dissatisfied 
they   should   withdraw,   and    the    galleries,    (for    the    church   was 

*  Tennent's  Remarks  on  the  Protest,  p.  35.  f  Refutation,  &c.  p.  134. 

J  At  what  stage  of  the  business  the  moderator  left  the  chair  is  not  stated, 
but  it  is  said  that  after  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  had  withdrawn,  he  re- 
sumed the  chair.  See  Appendix  to  the  printed  copy  of  the  Protest,  and  also 
p.  145,  of  the  Refutation,  &c. 

§  Twelve  out  of  twenty-six  ministers,  and  eight  out  of  eighteen  elders  signed 
the  Protest,  so  that  the  signers  were  to  the  non  signers  as  twenty  to  twenty- 
four.  There  were  nine  ministers  present  protested  against ;  twelve  protesting 
ministers,  and  five  who  were  between  the  two  parties.  It  was,  I  presume, 
mainly  to  ascertain  which  side  these  gentlemen  would  take  that  the  roll  was 
counted.  They  were  Messrs.  Andrews,  Gillespie,  Hucheson,  Elmer  and 
McHenry.  Mr.  Andrews  decided  at  once  as  to  the  part  he  would  take,  and  said 
openly  he  would  not  join  with  the  New  Brunswick  gentlemen,  (Refutation,  p. 
143,)  and  resumed  the  chair  in  the  Synod  as  soon  as  they  had  withdrawn. 
Mr.  Gillespie  and  Mr.  Hucheson  hesitated,  and  were  at  first  inclined  to  join 
the  New  Brunswick  brethren.  The  latter  did  connect  himself  with  the  Synod 
of  New  York  in  1747.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  in  the  struggle  for  the  ascen- 
dency there  was  no  minister  who  appeared  decidedly  for  Mr.  Tennent's  party, 
unless  it  was  Mr.  Hucheson,  who  met  with  them  the  next  day.  So  that  the 
party  stood  nine,  or,  (including  Mr.  Hucheson,)  ten,  to  twelve,  or,  (including 
Mr.  Andrews,)  thirteen;  Messrs.  Gillespie  and  McHenry,  it  is  said,  did  not 
"  appear  for  them  at  the  time  when  it  was  now  or  never  in  the  point  of  out 
voting." — (Refutation,  p.  143.)  Of  Mr.  Elmer  nothing  is  said;  he  was  proba- 
bly absent  at  this  juncture. 


158  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURCII 

crowded,)  rang  with  the  call  to  cast  them  out;*  for  this  purpose, 
they,  (the  Brunswick  brethren,)  counted  the  roll  to  see  if  they  had 
a  majority  ;f  when  it  appeared  that  they  were  the  minor  party, 
they  withdrew,  followed  by  a  great  crowd.  J 

It  is  plain  from  this  statement  that  not  even  the  forms  of  an 
ecclesiastical,  much  less  of  a  judicial  proceeding,  were  observed  at 
this  crisis.  There  was  no  motion,  no  vote,  not  even  a  presiding 
officer  in  the  chair.  It  was  a  disorderly  rupture.  A  number  of 
the  Synod  rise  and  declare  they  will  no  longer  sit  with  certain  of 
their  brethren,  unless  they  satisfy  their  complaints. §  The  mem- 
bers complained  of,  answer,  You  are  dissatisfied  and  are  the  minor- 
ity, therefore  you  must  go  out ;  and  then  a  confused  rush  is  made 
to  the  roll  to  see  which  was  the  stronger  party.  Such  was  the 
schism  of  1741. 

It  is  presumed  there  can  be  but  one  opinion  as  to  this  whole  pro- 
ceeding. There  were  but  two  courses  which  those  who  felt  ag- 
grieved by  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Tennent  and  his  friends  could  pro- 

*  Refutation,  p.  145. 

f  This  fact  is  stated  substantially  in  the  minute  of  the  Synod  quoted  above; 
it  is  explicitly  asserted  in  the  Appendix  to  the  printed  copy  of  the  Protest, 
and  repeatedly  in  the  Refutation  of  Mr.  Tennent's  Remarks.  Mr.  Tennent, 
however,  says  the  thought  of  casting  the  protesters  out  "  did  not  enter  into 
his  heart."  To  this  they  answered,  he  must  be  speaking  of  himself,  "  for  it 
is  certain  that  he  was  present  when  Mr.  Blair  and  several  other  members  of 
that  party  insisted,  that  since  we  had  protested,  it  was  our  part  to  withdraw, 
for  they  were  the  Synod.  And  when  the  roll  was  counted  to  cast  them  out, 
he  was  as  active  as  his  brethren."  The  assumption  of  such  a  demand  having 
been  made,  seems  necessary  to  account  for  the  roll  being  counted.  The  pro- 
testers had  said,  The  New  Brunswick  gentlemen  must  satisfy  their  complaints 
or  leave  the  Synod  ;  to  which  it  was  answered,  We  are  the  majority,  therefore 
you  must  withdraw;  and  then  the  roll  was  appealed  to,  to  decide  which  party 
should  go.  %  Refutation,  p.  145. 

\  "It  is  evident,"  say  the  protesters,  "from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Protest, 
especially  from  pages  seven  and  eight,  that  the  protesters  were  fully  deter- 
mined never  more  to  sit  with  these  brethren,  unless  they  gave  them  satisfac- 
tion in  the  points  complained  of;  but  were  determined,  with  as  many  as  would 
join  with  them,  to  maintain  the  rights  of  the  Synod,  and  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  these  parts."  —  Refutation,  &c.  p.  133. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  159 

"perly  take.  The  one  was  to  appeal  to  reason  and  the  word  of 
God,  and  rely  on  those  means  to  correct  the  evils  of  which  they 
complained.  It  is  true,  this  would  at  that  time  have  been  like 
talking  to  a  whirlwind ;  still,  when  the  storm  was  over,  truth  and 
reason  would  have  resumed  their  sway.  We  have  seen,  in  our  clay, 
examples  here  and  there  of  ministers  who  have  stood  a  much  more 
vulgar,  if  not  more  violent  storm  of  defamation,  combined  with 
new  doctrines  and  new  measures ;  their  people  carried  away,  their 
congregations  broken  up,  and  yet  these  same  men  rising  in  the 
confidence  and  esteem  of  the  church,  and  ultimately  reaping  the 
reward  of  their  faith  and  patience.  This  course  would  have  re- 
quired, at  the  time  of  which  we  speak,  more  self-command  and  self- 
denial  than  can  be  expected  even  of  most  good  men.  The  griev- 
ances complained  of  were  real  and  weighty.  These  opposing 
brethren  were  seriously  injured  in  their  reputation  ;  they  were 
regarded  as  enemies  of  practical  religion,  as  formalists,  hypocrites, 
or  bigots.  Their  comfort  and  usefulness  were  for  the  time  being 
destroyed.*  If  they  found  themselves  unable  to  submit  to  these 
grievances  in  silence,  their  second  course  was  regularly  to  table 
charges  against  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery.  There  was  the 
less  reason  for  departing  from  this  course  as  there  was  every  pros- 
pect of  its  being  successful.  That  Presbytery  had  already  been 
once  censured  for  its  irregular  conduct,  by  a  vote  of  the  Synod 
sustained  by  a  great  majority.  As  they  continued  their  irregular 
course,  the  proper  method  was  to  repeat  and  increase  the  censure. 
As  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  there  were  not  more  than  nine  minis- 
ters out  of  forty,  who  approved  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Tennent  and 
his  friends. f     As  to  the  three  great  grounds  of  complaint,  disobe- 

*  Mr.  Tennent  answers  this  complaint  with  a  taunt  which  was  unworthy 
of  him.  "  As  to  their  comfort,  we  believe  them  ;  but  respecting  their  success, 
we  thought  it  had  been  the  same  as  formerly ;  for  truly  this  is  the  first  time 
that  ever  we  have  heard  of  the  success  of  most  of  them." — Refutation,  &c. 
p.  23. 

f  Indeed  the  four  Tennents,  Mr.  Blair  and  Mr.  Wales,  were  the  only  men 
of*  any  weight  of  character  who  belonged  to  that  party.  Mr.  Creaghead  was 
violent  and  bigoted,  and  soon  left  the  church.  Mr.  Alexander  was  not  only 
very  disorderly,  but  also,  to  say  the  least,  very  imprudent  in  his  conduct.    Mr 


160  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

dience  to  the  decisions  of  Synod,  his  rash  condemnation  of  his 
brethren  without  a  trial,  and  his  intrusion  into  settled  congrega- 
tions, almost  all  his  brethren  were  against  him.  This  has  been 
abundantly  proved  in  the  preceding  pages.  There  is,  therefore,  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  on  all  these  points  he  and  his  friends  would 
have  been  condemned.  In  Scotland,  in  consequence  of  the  union 
between  the  church  and  the  state,  it  has  been  found  a  difficult 
matter  to  discipline  a  Presbytery.  In  this  country  such  difficulty 
does  not  exist.  If  a  Presbytery  persist  in  violating  the  constitu- 
tion, it  may,  in  perfect  consistency  with  our  principles,  be  disowned, 
as  was  the  case  with  the  Cumberland  Presbytery ;  or  dissolved, 
and  its  members  attached  to  other  Presbyteries.  But  even  if  there 
had  been  no  reasonable  prospect  of  success,  this  would  afford  no 
justification  of  the  aggrieved  party  for  taking  the  law  into  their 
own  hands.  When  men  live  under  a  constitution,  either  in  church 
or  state,  they  are  bound  to  abide  by  it,  and  to  seek  redress  only  in 
accordance  with  its  provisions.  It  is  obvious  that  no  society,  civil 
or  ecclesiastical,  can  long  exist,  whose  members  assume  the  prero- 
gative of  redressing  their  own  grievances.  In  this  country,  more 
than  in  most  others,  it  is  important  that  the  great  duty  of  abiding 
by  the  law,  should  be  graven  on  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

The  course,  then,  adopted  by  the  protesting  brethren,  in  1741, 
is  certainly  liable  to  the  grave  objection,  that  it  was  unconstitu- 
tional. It  was,  moreover,  inoperative  as  to  the  evils  it  was  intended 
to  repress.  The  invectives  under  which  the  authors  of  the  protest  had 
suffered,  were  only  rendered  the  more  severe ;  and  their  churches 
were  more  than  ever  open  to  the  intrusion  of  their  rejected  brethren. 
After  the  schism,  those  brethren  seem  to  have  thrown  off  all 
restraint  as  to  that  point,  and  to  have  established  separate  con- 
gregations wherever  the  opportunity  was  afforded.  The  situation 
of  the  protesters  was,  therefore,  in  no  respect  improved  by  the 
course  which  they  pursued ;  on  the  contrary,  it  was  worse  than 
before.  They  now  suffered  the  manifold  inconveniences  of  having 
placed  themselves  in  the  wrong.     The  large  and  respectable  Pres- 

Cross  was  then  under  a  cloud,  and  was  soon  suspended  by  the  New  Brunswick 
Presbytery. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  161 

bytery  of  New  York,  which  had  hitherto  sided  with  them,  after 
trying  for  several  years  to  effect  a  reconciliation,  seceded  from  the 
Synod  and  formed  a  new  body.  This  threw  the  superiority  as  to 
numbers,  character,  and  influence,  on  the  other  side,  and  was  a  last- 
ing injury  to  the  prosperity  and  usefulness  of  the  old  Synod. 
From  that  time,  if  it  did  not  actually  decline,  it  with  difficulty 
held  its  ground,  while  the  other  rapidly  increased. 

This  unfortunate  protest  continued  an  effectual  bar  to  the  union 
of  the  parties,  long  after  all  the  original  grounds  of  difference  had 
ceased  to  exist.  The  New  Brunswick  brethren  resented  the  charges 
contained  in  the  protest ;  they  denied  having  held  the  anarchical 
principles  therein  imputed  to  them.  Hence  no  union  was  ever 
effected  until  the  protest  was  disowned  as  a  synodical  act. 

The  day  after  the  rupture  in  the  Synod,  that  is,  on  June  2d, 
1741,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  held  a  pro  re  nata  meet- 
ing in  Philadelphia,  at  which  the  following  ministers  were  present : 
Messrs.  Gilbert  Tennent,  William  Tennent,  Jun.,  Eleazar  "Wales,  and 
John  Rowland,  together  with  the  following  correspondents  :  Messrs. 
William  Tennent,  Sen.,  Samuel  Blair,  Charles  Tennent,  David  Alex- 
ander, Alexander  Hucheson,  Alexander  Creaghead,  and  Richard 
Treat.  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  was  chosen  moderator,  and  Mr.  John 
Rowland,  clerk.     The  following  minute  was  then  adopted: 

"  Whereas,  the  aforementioned  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  and 
correspondents  have  all  along  hitherto  been  in  a  state  of  union  with 
the  other  ministers  in  these  parts  of  the  world  of  the  Presbyterian 
persuasion,  as  joint  members  with  them  of  one  united  synod  ;  and, 
whereas  the  greater  part  of  the  other  members  of  said  synod  with 
us  in  synod  met,  did  yesterday,  without  any  just  ground,  protest 
against  our  continuing  members  with  them  any  longer,  and  so  cast 
us  out  of  their  communion,  the  Presbytery  and  correspondents 
thus  turned  off  and  protested  against,  first  came  together  to  con- 
sider how  they  ought  to  conduct  themselves  in  their  present  cir- 
cumstances, for  the  fulfilling  the  work  committed  to  them  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  ministers  and  ruling  elders  in  his  house,  and 
they  do  agree  to  declare  that  the  aforesaid  protestation  of  their 
brethren  against  them,  is  most  unjust  and  sinful ;  and  do  moreover 
VOL.  n. — 11 


162  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

agree,  that  it  is  their  bounden  duty  to  form  themselves  into  distinct 
presbyteries  for  carrying  on  the  government  of  Christ's  church, 
and  do  accordingly  agree  and  appoint  that  Mr.  William  Tennent, 
Sen.,  and  Richard  Treat,  be  joined  to  the  standing  Presbytery  of 
New  Brunswick  ;  and  that  Messrs.  Samuel  Blair,  Alexander  Creag- 
head,  David  Alexander,  and  Charles  Tennent,  be  a  distinct  presby- 
tery, distinguished  by  the  name  of  the  Presbytery  of  Londonderry.* 
Mr.  George  Gillespie,  though  not  present  now,  having  declared  to  us 
his  willingness  and  desire  of  joining  with  us,  is  likewise  appointed 
a  member  of  the  said  Presbytery.  Mr.  Hucheson  having  mani- 
fested his  inclination  to  join  with  the  Presbytery,  but  desii  ing  fur- 
ther time  for  consideration,  his  desire  was  granted ;  and  it  was  like- 
wise ordered,  that  on  his  application  he  should  be  received  as  a  mem- 
ber thereof. f  Appointed  that  the  said  Presbytery  of  Londonderry 
meet  upon  the  30th  of  this  June,  at  Whiteclay  Creek,  and  that  Mr. 
Blair  open  the  Presbytery  with  a  sermon.  It  is  further  agreed  and 
appointed  that  the  said  Presbyteries  of  New  Brunswick  and  Lon- 
donderry do  meet  at  Philadelphia  on  the  second  Wednesday  of 
August  next,  in  the  capacity  of  a  synod.  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent 
was  appointed  to  open  Synod  with  a  sermon. "J 

When  the  Presbytery  met  in  the  afternoon,  they  received  appli- 
cations for  supplies  from  eighteen  or  twenty  different  places,  many 
of  which  were  already  provided  with  settled  pastors,  and  almost  all 
of  them  were  under  the  care  of  the  existing  Presbyteries  of  Phila- 
delphia, New  Castle,  and  Donegal.  It  was,  however,  determined  to 
send  preachers  to  them  all,  as  far  as  it  could  be  done.  The  schism 
was  thus  effectually  carried  down  among  the  congregations,  and 
rendered  permanent. 

The  next  day  the  Presbytery  entered  upon  their  minutes  the  fol- 
lowing record : 

"  Inasmuch  as  the  ministers  who  have  protested  against  our  being 

*  Afterwards  called  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle ;  so  that  there  were  two 
Presbyteries  of  New  Castle  during  the  schism. 

f  As  mentioned  above,  both  Mr.  Gillespie  and  Mr.  Hucheson  concluded  to 
remain  with  the  old  Synod ;  the  former  permanently,  the  latter  until  1747. 

X  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  p.  21. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  163 

of  their  communion,  do  at  least  insinuate  false  reflections  against 
us,  endeavouring  to  make  people  suspect  that  we  are  receding  from 
Presbyterian  principles,  for  the  satisfaction  of  such  Christian 
people  as  may  be  stumbled  at  such  aspersions,  we  think  it  fit,  una- 
nimously to  declare,  that  we  do  adhere  as  closely  and  fully  to  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms,  and  Directory,  as 
ever  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  did,  in  any  of  their  public  acts  or 
agreements  about  them. 

"  Mr.  Blair  was  appointed  to  draw  up  an  account  of  the  differ- 
ences in  our  Synod  for  some  years  past,  which  have  at  last  issued 
in  this  separation,  against  the  time  of  our  next  meeting,  that  it 
may  be  prepared  for  the  public,  if  need  be.  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent 
was  appointed  to  write  an  answer  to  the  protest  made  by  our 
brethren,  wherein  things  are  most  unjustly  represented."* 

Thus  was  commenced  a  schism  which  it  required  seventeen  years 
of  uninterrupted  effort  to  heal.  Though  the  separation  began  in 
1741,  in  the  manner  above  narrated,  it  was  not  fully  consummated 
until  1745.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  detail  the  progress  of 
events  in  connexion  with  this  subject,  until  that  time. 

The  Synod  met  in  1742,  and  chose  Mr.  Dickinson  moderator, 
and  Mr.  Alison  clerk.  There  were  present  twenty-four  clerical 
members,  including  seven  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.f 
On  motion  made  by  the  moderator,  it  was  resolved,  "  That  the 
Synod  should  hold  a  conference  with  the  New  Brunswick  brethren 
that  they  rejected  last  year,  in  order  to  accommodate  the  difference, 
and  make  up   the   unhappy  breach."     It  was   thereupon   agreed, 

*  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  p.  24.  The  work  assigned 
in  the  above  minutes  to  Mr.  Blair,  was  prepared  and  published  under  some 
such  title  as  "  The  Declaration  of  the  conjoint  Presbyteries  of  New  Brunswick 
and  New  Castle."  It  is  referred  to  in  Mr.  Blair's  answer  to  Mr.  Creaghead's 
reasons  for  seceding  from  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  is  largely  quoted  in 
the  Detector  Detected,  which  was  a  reply  by  Messrs.  Samuel  Finley  and  Robert 
Smith,  to  the  charges  of  two  seceder  ministers  against  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle  for  loose  Presbyterianism. 

f  These  New  York  brethren  were  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Ebenezer  Pemberton, 
John  Pierson,  John  Nutman,  Simon  Horton,  Silas  Leonard,  and  Azariah 
Hnrton. 


164  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURCH 

'•  that  Messrs.  Dickinson,  Pemberton,  Pierson,  Cross,  Andrews, 
Thompson,  Cathcart,  David  Evans,  and  Alison,  meet  with  those 
brethren,  and  try  all  methods  consistent  with  gospel  truth,  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  healing  the  said  breach."*  The  next  morning,  the 
Synod  resolved  itself  "  into  an  interloquitur  of  ministers  and  elders 
to  manage  the  conference  with  the  rejected  brethren,  who  were 
allowed,  if  they  see  cause,  to  bring  with  them  the  ministers  that 
they  ordained,  that  were  never  allowed  to  be  members  of  this 
Synod,  and  all  their  respective  elders.  After  a  great  deal  of  time 
spent  to  no  purpose,  the  interloquitur  found  that  all  attempts  for  a 
coalition  were  vain  and  fruitless,  and  therefore  it  is  agreed  to 
adjourn  until  three  o'clock,  P.  M.     Concluded  with  prayer." 

In  the  afternoon  "  the  Synod  entered  upon  the  affair  complained 
of  by  the  ejected  members,  and  the  question  put  for  managing 
the  said  affair  was,  Who  should  be  the  judges  of  the  case  ?  The 
ejected  members  would  submit  the  business  to  the  consideration  of 
none  as  judges,  but  such  as  had  not  signed  the  protest  last  year; 
and  the  protesting  brethren  answered  to  the  point,  that  they,  with 
the  members  that  had  adhered  to  them  after  ejecting  said  members, 
were  the  Synod,  and  acted  as  such  in  the  rejection  ;  and  in  so  doing 
they  only  cast  out  such  members  as  they  judged  had  rendered 
themselves  unworthy  of  membership,  by  openly  maintaining  and 
practising  things  subversive  of  their  constitution,  and  therefore 
would  not  be  called  to  an  account  by  absent  members,  or  by  any 
judicature  on  earth,  but  were  willing  to  give  the  reasons  of  their 
conduct  to  their  absent  brethren  to  consider  or  review  it."  The 
Synod  had,  the  next  morning,  another  interloquitur  meeting,  without 
coming  to  any  conclusion  ;  and  there  the  matter  rested  for  that  year. 

The  following  protest  was  given  in  by  several  members:  "To 
the  Reverend  Synod  now  sitting  in  Philadelphia :  we  the  sub- 
scribers, in  our  own,  and  in  the  name  of  all  that  shall  see  meet  to 
join  with  us,  look  upon  ourselves  as  obliged  in  the  most  public 
manner  to  declare  our  opinion  with  respect  to  the  division  made  in 
our  Synod  last  year  by  a  protest  delivered  in  by  several  of  our 
members. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  ii.  p.  76. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  105 

"  First.  We  declare  against  the  excluding  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Brunswick  and  their  adherents  from  the  communion  of  the 
Synod  by  a  protest,  without  giving  them  a  previous  trial,  as  an 
illegal  and  unprecedented  proceeding ;  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the 
gospel,  and  subversive  of  our  excellent  constitution.* 

"  Secondly.  We  declare  and  protest  against  the  conduct  of  our 
brethren,  the  last  year's  protesters,  in  refusing  to  have  the  legality 
of  their  said  protest  tried  by  the  present  Synod. 

"  Thirdly.  We  therefore  declare  and  protest,  that  those  mem- 
bers of  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  and  their  adherents,  that 
were  excluded  by  the  last  year's  protest,  are  to  be  owned  and 
esteemed  as  members  of  this  Synod,  till  they  are  excluded  by  a 
regular  and  impartial  process  against  them,  according  to  the 
methods  prescribed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  practised  by  the  churches 
of  the  Presbyterian  persuasion. 

"  Fourthly.  We  protest  against  all  passages  in  any  pamphlets 
which  have  been  lately  published  in  these  parts,  which  seem  to 
reflect  upon  the  work  of  divine  power  and  grace,  which  has  been 
carrying  on,  in  so  wonderful  a  manner,  in  many  of  our  congrega- 
tions ;  and  declare  to  all  the  world,  that  we  look  upon  it  to  be  the 
indispensable  duty  of  all  our  ministers  to  encourage  that  glorious 
work,  with  their  most  diligent  and  faithful  endeavours.  And  in 
like  manner  we  protest  and  declare  against  all  divisive  and  irregular 
methods  and  practices  by  which  the  peace  and  good  order  of  our 
churches  have  been  broken  in  upon. 

"  This  is  what  our  duty  to  God,  and  our  regard  to  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  his  church,  oblige  us  to  protest  and  declare ;  and  we 
desire  it  may  be  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  in  perpetuam 
rei  memoriam.  Signed,  Jonathan  Dickinson,  John  Pierson,  Eben- 
ezer  Pemberton,   Simon  Horton,  Daniel  Elmer,  Azariah  Horton, 

*  To  this  article  is  appended  a  contemporaneous  note,  in  the  handwriting 
of  Mr.  Andrews,  but  probably  made  by  Mr.  Alison,  to  the  following  effect : 
"  This  is,  in  the  first  article,  protestatio  contra  factum  ;  for  they  were  excluded 
by  vote  of  Synod,  if  they  refused  to  give  satisfaction  for  the  points  complained 
of,  and  upon  this  they  withdrew."  It  is  certainly  strange  that  there  is  no 
intimation  or  record  of  such  a  vote  on  the  minutes. 


166  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ministers  ;  and  Nathaniel  Hazard,  David  Whitehead,  Silas  Leonard, 
Timothy  Whitehead,  elders."* 

To  this  protest,  Mr.  Alison  gave  the  following  answer.  "  I, 
the  subscriber,  do  hereby  desire  that  it  may  be  inserted  on  the 
Synod's  minute  book,  that  I  judge  it  an  open  infringement  of 
the  rights  of  society,  and  particularly  of  our  rights  as  Presbyte- 
rians, for  absent  members  to  pretend  to  a  right  to  call  the  body  to 
account,  and  judge  of  the  legality  of  the  proceedings  in  acts,  reso- 
lutions, and  conclusions,  made  in  their  absence ;  though  I  firmly 
believe  it  is  the  duty  of  such  a  body  to  submit  such  resolutions  and 
conclusions  to  a  review  by  the  next  Synod.  And  though  I  look  on 
it  as  giving  up  some  of  our  rights,  yet  it  is  my  earnest  desire,  and 
what  I  insist  on,  that  the  merits  of  the  cause  for  which  the  last 
year's  Synod  rejected  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  and  their  ad- 
herents, be  fairly  tried  by  this  present  Synod,  in  order  to  manifest 
the  justice  of  the  said  proceedings.     Francis  Alison."  f 

Had  a  conciliatory  spirit  prevailed  in  either  of  the  contending 
parties,  a  reconciliation  might  probably  have  been  effected,  under 
the  mediation  of  these  New  York  brethren.  They  were  in  a  pro- 
per position  to  act  as  mediators.  They  had  not  been  involved  in 
the  dispute.  They  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  both  parties.  While 
they  complained  of  the  irregular  mode  of  exclusion,  they  recog- 
nized the  right  to  exclude,  and  protested  against  the  disorderly 
course  which  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  had  pursued.  It  may 
well  be  doubted,  however,  whether  the  method  which  these  gentle- 
men adopted  on  this  occasion,  was  judicious.  It  seems  they  de- 
manded that  the  legality  of  the  protest  should  be  tried,  and  that 
this  question  should  be  decided  by  themselves  and  the  few  mem- 
bers present,  who  had  neither  protested,  nor  been  protested  against. 
Whatever  view  be  taken  of  the  protest,  this  course  seems  fairly 
liable  to  the  objection  so  warmly  urged  by  Dr.  Alison.  If  the 
protesters  had  assumed  the  attitude  of  accusers,  the  New  Bruns- 
wick brethren  been  regarded  as  accused,  and  the  four  remaining 
members  of  the  Synod  the  judges,  by  whose  decision  the  rejected 
members  were  excluded,  it  would  certainly  be  incompetent  for  ab- 

*  Miuutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  pp.  77,  78.  f  Ibid.  p.  78. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  167 

sent  members  to  re-open  the  case,  and  give  a  new  trial.  The  only 
proper  method  would  have  been,  for  the  Synod,  as  then  constituted, 
to  remove  the  sentence,  as  in  any  other  case  of  ecclesiastical  cen- 
sure. No  one  pretended,  however,  that  the  course  just  stated  was 
the  one  actually  pursued.  The  New  Brunswick  brethren  were  not 
arraigned  and  tried ;  much  less  were  they  excluded  by  the  four 
non-protesting  members.  Of  those  four  Mr.  Andrews  was  the  only 
one  who  decidedly  took  part  against  them.  The  others,  viz. : 
Messrs.  Gillespie,  Hucheson,  and  McHenry,*  all  disapproved  of 
the  protest,  and  of  the  rupture. 

The  view  which  Mr.  Alison  took  of  the  matter  was  this.  He 
regarded  the  protest  as  a  solemn  demand  upon  the  New  Brunswick 
brethren  for  satisfaction,  which  they  refused  to  give.  Whereupon 
the  Synod,  by  a  formal  vote,  cast  them  out.  Had  this  been  the 
real  history  of  the  case,  the  proper  course  would  have  been  to  move 
the  reconsideration  of  that  vote.  This  would  have  brought  up  the 
whole  merits  of  the  case;  which  Mr.  Alison  did  not  object  to,  and 
could  not,  therefore,  have  opposed.  The  history  of  the  session 
of  the  1st  June,  1741,  shows,  however,  that  this  view  of  the  case 
is  no  more  consistent  with  the  facts  than  the  one  before  mentioned. 
There  was  no  motion  to  exclude,  and  of  course  no  vote  upon  such 
a  motion.  The  counting  of  the  roll,  which  Mr.  Alison  seems  to 
have  regarded  as  taking  the  vote,  was  not  done  to  decide  any  mo- 
tion, nor  .was  it  done,  to  all  appearance,  while  the  moderator  was 
in  the  chair. f 

The  only  proper  view  of  the  matter,  seems  to  have  been  that 
taken  by  the  New  York  brethren,  viz. :  that  the  rupture  was  alto- 
gether violent  and  irregular.     There   was  no  trial,  and  no  vote. 

*  Mr.  McHenry's  disapprobation  of  the  protest  is  stated  by  Mr.  Tennent 
in  his  Remarks,  &c.  p.  34. 

f  Mr.  Alison  himself  frequently  says,  that  the  roll  was  counted  on  the 
demand  of  the  New  Brunswick  gentlemen,  and  with  a  view  to  cast  the  pro- 
testers out.  If  this  is  so,  then  it  certainly  was  not  a  vote  to  cast  the  other 
party  out.  The  decision  must  have  been  yea  or  nay ;  the  protesters  go,  or 
the  protesters  remain.  This,  of  course,  would  decide  nothing  directly  as  to 
the  New  Brunswick  brethren. 


168  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

The  protest  threw  the  Synod  into  utter  confusion,  and  the  weaker 
party,  as  soon  as  it  ascertained  itself  to  be  the  weaker,  left  the 
house.  If  this  is  a  correct  account  of  the  matter,  as  the  with- 
drawing was  not  a  voluntary  secession,  nor  the  exclusion  a  regular 
synodical  act,  it  might  have  been  treated  as  a  nullity.  The  right 
of  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  to  their  seats  remained  unim- 
paired ;  and  when  they  appeared  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Synod, 
the  regular  course  was,  to  move  that  their  names  be  added  to  the 
roll.  This  again  would  have  brought  up  the  merits  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  led  to  a  formal  decision  one  way  or  the  other.*  What- 
ever view,  therefore,  be  taken  of  the  proceedings  leading  to  the 
schism,  the  demand  that  the  legality  of  the  protest  should  be  tried, 
and  its  signers  excluded  from  voting,  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
a  proper  method  to  heal  the  breach. 

The  Synod  met  in  1743,  and  was  opened  with  a  sermon  by  Presi- 
dent Dickinson.  There  were  present  twenty-three  clerical  mem- 
bers, including  five  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  Mr.  Da- 
vid Cowell  was  chosen  moderator,  and  Mr.  Alison  clerk.  On  the 
sixth  day  of  the  sessions,  an  overture  was  presented  to  the  Synod 
from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  the  following  effect.  After 
lamenting  the  existing  division  in  the  church  as  dishonourable  to 
God,  scandalous  to  religion,  injurious  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
body,  and  favourable  to  the  spread  of  dangerous  errors  and  delu- 
sions, they  proposed,  1.  That  as  the  exclusion  of  the  New  Bruns- 
wick brethren,  by  a  protest,  without  a  distinct  vote  of  the  Synod 
founded  on  a  hearing  of  their  case  was  irregular,  the  protest  be 
withdrawn,  and  those  members  be  allowed  to  take  their  seats.  2. 
As  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  the  education  of  candi- 
dates for  the  ministry  be  properly  managed,  they  proposed  that  all 
future  candidates  should  submit  to  the  rule  of  Synod  relating  to 
examinations,  or  else  graduate  as  bachelors  of  arts  in  one  of  the 
New  England  colleges.      3.    With  regard  to  itinerant  preaching, 

*  Had  this  course  been  pursued,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  New  Bruns- 
wick gentlemen  would  have  been  recognized  as  members.  Four  of  the  signers 
of  the  protest  were  absent;  and  seven  New  York  members,  who  were  absent 
the  year  before,  were  now  present.     This  might  have  turned  the  scales. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  169 

they  proposed  that  every  pulpit  should  be  considered  open  to  all 
the  regular  ministers  of  the  church,  and  that  it  should  be  consi- 
dered unbrotherly  for  one  minister  to  refuse  his  pulpit  to  another, 
unless  for  a  reason  which  shall  be  approved  by  the  Presbytery, 
Synod,  or  the  commission ;  and  that  no  divisions  of  the  congrega- 
tions, separate  meetings,  or  attempts  to  alienate  the  hearts  of  the 
people  from  their  pastors,  should  hereafter  be  allowed,  and  that 
every  contravention  of  this  article  be  looked  upon  as  just  ground 
of  censure  either  by  the  Presbytery  or  Synod.  4.  That  if  any 
minister  thinks  he  has  any  ground  of  complaint  against  any  of  his 
brethren,  either  for  doctrine,  manner  of  preaching,  or  conduct,  he 
shall  first  present  his  complaints,  in  a  private  way,  and  if  this 
method  fail,  he  shall  make  regular  charges,  and  bring  the  matter 
before  the  Presbytery,  Synod,  or  commission.  5.  That  all  past 
differences  be  buried  in  oblivion.  6.  Considering  the  absolute 
necessity  of  union,  they  pray  that  this,  or  some  other  plan  of  union 
should  be  at  once  adopted ;  but  if  this  could  not  be  done,  they  pro- 
pose that  a  new  Synod  be  formed,  and  the  several  members  have 
liberty  to  join  either  at  pleasure,  and  that  these  Synods  should 
send  two  correspondents  each  year,  the  one  to  the  other.* 

As  the  principal  grounds  of  complaint  against  the  ejected  mem- 
bers were  disregarding  the  rule  of  Synod  relating  to  the  examina- 
tion of  candidates,  intruding  into  the  congregations  of  settled 
ministers  and  causing  divisions  among  their  people  and  the  con- 
demnation of  their  brethren  without  trial,  there  is  little  doubt,  that 
had  these  proposals  been  made  before  the  schism  they  would  have 
been  gladly  acceded  to ;  as  it  was,  however,  strange  to  say,  they 
were  unanimously  rejected. f      It    may  serve   to  account  for   the 

*  Minutes  of  Synod,  pp.  81,  82. 

f  "  Some  remarks,"  it  is  recorded,  "  upon  the  above  overture  were  read,  and 
after  some  consideration,  it  was  put  to  vote  whether  this  be  accepted  as  a  plan 
of  accommodation  or  not,  and  it  was  unanimously  voted  in  the  negative."  — 
Minutes,  p.  83.  There  were  present  at  this  meeting  of  the  Synod,  besides  the 
five  brethren  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  Messrs.  Robert  Cathcart, 
Francis  Alison,  Robert  Jamison,  John  Thompson,  Adam  Boyd,  Samuel  Black, 
John  Elder,  Richard  Sanckey,  Samuel  Cavin,  Alexander  McDowell,  Hamilton 


170  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURCII 

decided  rejection  of  propositions  apparently  so  reasonable,  if  it  ia 
remembered  tbat  the  schism  did  not  put  a  stop  to  the  evils  by  which 
it  was  occasioned.  Mr.  Tennent's  denunciations  of  his  brethren 
were  at  this  time  more  bitter  than  ever,*  and  divisions  in  congrega- 
tions were  now  fostered  without  any  restraint.  It  is,  therefore, 
probable  that  the  Synod  thought  there  was  little  probability  that 
these  proposals,  emanating  from  the  New  York,  and  not  from  the 
New  Brunswick  brethren,  would  be  adhered  to.  They  insisted, 
therefore,  that  there  should  be  a  distinct  acknowledgment  made  by 
these  last-mentioned  brethren,  that  the  course  they  had  hitherto 
pursued  was  wrong.  It  must  be  confessed  that  it  was  very  unlikely 
that  Mr.  Tennent  and  his  friends  would  have  acceded  to  the  terms 
proposed  in  the  above  overture.  So  far  from  opening  their  pulpits 
to  all  their  brethren,  there  were  some  of  them,  and  those  very 
good  men  too,  with  whom  some  of  their  number  would  not  even 
commune.  And  as  to  the  separate  meetings  which  had  already 
been  set  up  in  many  congregations,  Mr.  Tennent  says,  he  and  his 
friends  must  have  "bowels  of  adamant"  to  refuse  to  take  them 
under  their  care.  There  were,  therefore,  practical  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  a  union,  which  the  New  York  brethren,  living  most  of 
them  in  East  Jersey,  remote  from  the  scene  of  conflict,  could  not 
so  well  appreciate. 

The  reasons  assigned  by  the  Synod  for  rejecting  the  overture 
above  mentioned,  are  contained  in  a  paper  recorded  in  the  minutes 
for  the  following  year.f  On  the  first  article  of  the  overture  they 
remark,  that  they  still  think  that  the  exclusion  of  the  New  Bruns- 
wick brethren  by  the  protestation,  is  sufficiently  justified  by  the 
reasons  specified  therein,  which  reasons  are  further  strengthened 
by  the  conduct  of  the  said  brethren  ever  since ;  and  therefore  they 
say  it  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  duty  and  a  good  conscience 
to  withdraw  the  protest,  or  to  recede  from  it ;  and  further,  that 

Boll,  John  Hindman,  Jcdodiah  Andrews,  Robert  Cross,  Daniel  Elmer,  Francis 
McIIenry,  and  Samuel  Evans.  How  many  of  these  were  actually  present* 
when  the  above  vote  was  taken,  does  not  appear. 

*  See  the  Examiner  Examined,  published  in  1743,  passim. 

t  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  iii.  p.  2. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  171 

the  only  possible  expedient  in  order  to  a  re-union  is  for  the  New 
Brunswick  brethren  to  let  the  Synod  know,  under  their  own  hands, 
how  far  they  can  or  will  comply,  to  give  the  Synod  satisfaction  for 
the  offences  complained  of,  by  acknowledging  their  past  miscon- 
duct, and  by  giving  satisfactory  security  against  the  fears  of  the 
like  offences  for  the  future. 

On  the  second  article  they  say,  that  if  the  New  Brunswick  bre- 
thren would  once  give  satisfaction  for  their  disregarding  the  rule 
about  the  examination  of  candidates,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  that 
matter  would  be  adjusted. 

On  article  third  they  remark  that,  in  their  judgment,  to  open 
their  pulpits  to  every  itinerant  preacher,  would  be  the  very  way  to 
promote  divisions ;  that  it  would  be  better  to  leave  the  matter  to 
the  discretionary  agreement  of  the  ministers  concerned ;  and  that 
no  preacher  should  travel  abroad  for  preaching'  sake  without  an 
order  from  his  own  Presbytery,  and  the  concurrence  of  the  Presby- 
tery within  the  bounds  of  which  he  was  to  preach.  As  to  separate 
meetings,  it  was  not  enough  that  they  should  not  be  encouraged  for 
the  future ;  all  proper  means  should  be  taken  to  heal  the  divisions 
already  occasioned. 

To  the  fourth  article  they  make  no  objection,  except  that  com- 
plaints against  ministers  ought  not,  in  the  first  instance,  to  be 
brought  before  the  Synod,  but  the  Presbytery. 

The  fifth  article  they  also  approved  of,  on  the  supposition  that  a 
satisfactory  union  was  affected.  As  to  the  formation  of  a  new 
Synod,  they  say,  that  as  it  would  be  to  perpetuate  schism,  they 
could  not  sanction  it  by  a  synodical  act ;  but  if,  contrary  to  their 
judgment  and  inclination,  the  New  York  brethren  should  determine 
to  form  such  a  body,  they  hoped  "  by  the  grace  of  God  to  cultivate 
a  truly  Christian  and  charitable  disposition  towards  them." 

When  the  Synod  rejected  the  New  York  overture,  a  paper  "  was 
given  in  by  Mr.  Jonathan  Dickinson,  in  his  own  name,  and  in  the 
names  of  Messrs.  Ebenezer  Pemberton,  John  Pierson,  and  Aaron 
Burr,  having  previously  declared  that  they  complained  of  no  un- 
friendly or  unbrotherly  treatment  from  the  Synod  in  relation  to 
themselves,  but  that  their  conduct  in  this  affair  may  be  liable  to 


11  2  PRESBYTERIAN    CnUR-CH 

misrepresentations ;  which  said  paper  is  as  follows :  As  I  look  on 
myself  to  be  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  and  have  a 
continued  right  to  sit  and  act  in  the  same  as  such,  so  I  look  upon 
the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  and  those  brethren  that  adhere  to 
them,  and  are  therefore  shut  out  of  Synod  on  that  account,  to  be  as 
truly  members  of  this  Synod  as  myself,  or  any  others  whatsoever, 
and  have  a  just  claim  to  sit  and  act  with  us.  I  cannot,  therefore, 
at  present  see  my  way  clear  to  sit  and  act  as  though  we  were  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  while  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  and 
the  other  members  with  them,  are  kept  out  of  the  Synod  as  they 
now  are."* 

In  place  of  the  overture  from  New  York,  the  following  plan  of 
accommodation  was  sent  to  the  New  Brunswick  gentlemen,  through 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Aaron  Burr :  "  Forasmuch  as  we  ane  informed 
that  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  are  willing  and  desirous  of  recon- 
ciliation and  union  with  this  Synod,  and  to  know  on  what  terms 
this  may  be  obtained ;  that  the  said  brethren  may  be  fully  persuaded 
that  we  have  no  delight  in  division  for  its  own  sake,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, are  sincerely  desirous  of  peace  and  union  on  reasonable  terms, 
so  that  on  our  cordial  agreement  there  be  a  foundation  laid,  that, 
through  God's  blessing,  may  prevent  the  havoc  and  destruction  of 
the  church  threatened  by  our  common  enemies.  Therefore  we  pro- 
pose, 

"  1.  That  as  they  desire  to  be  received  and  treated  as  members 
of  our  Synod,  they  will  submit  to  the  determinations  and  conclu- 
sions of  our  judicatories,  even  in  those  cases  wherein  they  are 
negatives  in  giving  their  votes,  and  so  allow  a  determination  to  be 
by  a  majority,  or  else  no  longer  plead  a  right  of  membership.  And 
that  they  renounce  their  principles  delivered  in  their  Apology,  espe- 
cially that  whereby  they  declare  that  Presbyteries  and  Synods  have 
n3  power  to  make  any  agreements,  or  come  to  any  determinations 
by  votes,  which  shall  bind  any  members  who  do  not  give  their  con- 
lent  to  those  conclusions  or  determinations ;  for  without  this  recan- 
tation they  can  never  be  members  of  this  Synod,  seeing  they  put  in 
a  claim  for  arbitrary  power  to  destroy  and  overturn  all  our  agree- 
*  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  p.  83. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  173 

ments,  and  to  despise  and  disregard  our  censures,  as  they  have 
already  professedly  done  in  licensing  and  ordaining  so  many  men 
for  the  work  of  the  ministry. 

"  2.  If  they  profess  they  will  use  all  endeavours  to  secure  a 
learned  ministry,  we  desire  that  they  will  testify  this  by  desisting 
from  licensing  or  ordaining  men  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  who 
have  not  complied  with  the  Synod's  agreement,  or  the  alternative 
proposed  in  the  last  year's  conference  with  these  brethren  ;  and  that 
they  give  up  all  those  persons  that  they  have  heretofore  licensed 
or  ordained  in  opposition  to  our  public  agreement,  to  be  ex- 
amined and  tried  by  the  Synod,  whether  they  have  suitable  minis- 
terial qualifications,  or  that  they  will  not  maintain  ministerial  com- 
munion with  any  of  them  for  the  future,  who  refuse  to  be  examined 
by  the  Synod,  or  who  upon  examination  are  found  deficient,  until 
they  give  suitable  satisfaction. 

"  3.  That  for  the  future  they  will  desist  from  either  acting  or 
preaching,  or  sending  their  missionaries  into  the  bounds  of  our 
Presbyteries  or  fixed  pastoral  charges,  as  heretofore.  That  they 
will  not  encourage  new  separate  societies  in  congregations  as  hither- 
to, nor  supply  with  preaching  the  societies  they  have  made  or  occa- 
sioned among  the  people  under  our  care,  but  declare  that  all  such 
practices  are  of  pernicious  tendency  and  inconsistent  with  the  pres- 
byterian  plan. 

"  4.  That  they  will  not  publicly  nor  privately  endeavour  to 
diminish  the  character  of  any  minister  as  graceless,  or  unconverted, 
or  unworthy  of  his  office,  until  he  be  tried  by  a  proper  judicature 
and  censured  :  and  that  they  claim  no  right  to  judge  of  men's 
spiritual  estate  towards  God,  so  as  to  determine  whether  they  be 
gracious  or  graceless,  if  sound  in  the  faith,  and  of  a  gospel  life  and 
conversation ;  and  that  they  condemn  all  such  practices. 

"  5.  That  they  renounce  all  such  tenets  or  doctrines  that  have 
been  advanced  in  Mr.  Tennent's  Nottingham  sermon,  which  are 
contrary  to  our  presbyterian  plan,  subversive  of  gospel  order,  and 
a  floodgate  to  let  in  divisions  ancl  disorders  into  the  churches;  such 
as  an  allowance  to  church  members,  to  guess  at  the  spiritual  estate 
of  their  pastors,  and  upon  this  guess,  without  further  trial,  to  leavs 


174  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

them  as  graceless  and  unconverted ;  the  asserting  an  inward  call  to 
the  ministry,  in  opposition  and  contradiction  to  the  outward  call  or 
ordaining  to  the  gospel  ministry.  All  who  maintain  them,  (i.  e.  the 
above  doctrines,)  can  be  no  members  of  a  Presbyterian  society  or 
church,  because  they  take  all  government  out  of  the  hands  of  a 
Synod  or  Presbytery,  and  give  it  to  any  person  that  hath  igno- 
rance or  impudence  enough  to  bring  God's  house  into  confusion. 

"  6.  That  they  acknowledge  that  too  many  of  them  have  been 
guilty  in  all  these  points,  and,  notwithstanding,  whatever  zeal  and 
intention  to  promote  a  work  of  grace  they  might  have  been  in- 
fluenced by,  yet  now  they  are  convinced  that  such  practices  have 
had  a  dreadful  tendency  to  promote  and  spread  the  divisions  and 
confusions  which  perplex  and  disturb  this  church. 

"  7.  We  propose  that  if  they  have  any  ground  of  complaint 
against  any  of  our  members,  with  respect  to  their  doctrines,  con- 
versation, or  diligence  in  the  ministry,  they  shall  be  welcome  to 
table  the  charge  against  them  in  a  proper  judicatory,  whether  they 
comply  with  these  terms  or  not ;  and  that  if  they  satisfy  us  in 
these  points,  and  accept  their  seats  in  our  Synod,  all  other  grounds 
of  complaint  shall  be  removed,  either  by  public  trial,  or  such  other 
method  as  they  and  we  in  conjunction  shall  determine.  And  we 
declare  that  if  all  or  any  of  those  brethren  accept  these  terms,  or 
any  other,  that  they  and  we  can  devise  or  agree  to,  that  will  lay  a 
foundation  to  secure  these  important  rights  of  society,  a  learned 
and  pious  ministry,  and  to  prevent  errors  and  divisions  in  a  way 
agreeable  to  God's  word,  and  the  Presbyterian  constitution,  we  are 
heartily  willing  to  receive  them.  And  we  desire  that  they  may 
give  us  their  answer  to  these  heads  as  soon  as  they  can  con- 
veniently."* 

To  this  paper  the  following  answer  was  returned :  "  Upon  a 
paper  sent  to  us  from  the  ministers  that  protested  against  us,  pro- 

*  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  pp.  83"  84. — It  is  stated  in  the  minutes  that  the 
above  proposals  "  were  sent  in  an  extra-jimicial  way  to  the  Brunswick  brethren  ; 
upon  reading  of  which  in  open  Synod,  it  was  agreed,  that  these  proposals  were 
reasonable,  in  order  to  open  the  way  toward  an  accommodation  and  interview 
between  those  brethren  and  us." 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  175 

posing  certain  terms  of  union  ;  this  conjunct  meeting  of  the  Pres- 
byteries of  New  Brunswick  and  New  Castle,  does  judge  that  there 
can  be  no  regular  methods  of  proceeding  toward  the  compassing  a 
stable  union  between  them  and  us,  until  their  illegal  protest  be 
withdrawn,  that  so  they  and  we  may  both  stand  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing in  the  regular  trial  of  the  differences  between  us;  that  their 
paper  contains  sundry  misrepresentations  and  unreasonable  de- 
mands ;  and  that  we  have  several  charges  against  them  to  be  satis- 
fied in  before  we  could  come  into  a  settled  union  with  them."* 

In  1744,  no  member  of  the  New  York  Presbytery  appeared  in 
Synod,  and  no  new  effort  was  made  to  heal  the  schism.  In  1745, 
Messrs.  Dickinson,  Pemberton,  and  Pierson,  were  present  and 
enrolled  as  members.  On  the  second  day  of  the  sessions,  those 
gentlemen,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  by 
a  commission  from  them,  desired  the  Synod  to  appoint  a  committee 
to  try  whether  an  overture  could  be  prepared,  removing  any  grounds 
of  dissatisfaction  or  difference  between  them  and  the  Synod." 
Whereupon  it  was  "  ordered  that  Messrs.  Andrews,  Cross,  Alison, 
Thompson,  Boyd,  Gillespie,  McDowell,  Samuel  Evans,  and  the 
moderator,  (Cathcart,")  be  that  committee.  As  this  committee  did 
not  succeed  in  preparing  an  overture,  the  whole  Synod  was  resolved 
into  a  committee  of  conference.  After  much  consultation,  Messrs. 
Thompson,  Alison,  Steel,  and  McDowell,  were  appointed  to  draw 
up  a  plan  of  union,  and  report  it  at  the  next  meeting.  The  follow- 
ing day  this  committee  accordingly  reported  their  plan.  Before  it 
was  read,  the  New  York  gentlemen  were  asked,  "  whom  of  the 
New  Brunswick  brethren  they  alleged  to  be  members,  whether  all 
who  are  now  of  that  party,  or  only  such  of  them  as  enjoyed  mem- 
bership before  ?  And  they  declared  they  account  only  such  of  them 
as  have  been  members  and  had  their  seats,  to  be  now  members,  and 
no  others.  The  overture  drawn  up  by  the  committee  was  twice 
read,  and  this  vote  put :  Whether  it  was  a  proper  plan  of  accom- 
modation to  propose  ?  and  it  was  voted  proper  to  propose  it,  and  it 
is  as  follows : 

"  1.   The  glory  of  God  and  the  advancement  of  Christ's  king- 

*  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  ii.  p.  85. 


176  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

dom,  by  the  persuading  souls  to  embrace  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on 
gospel  terms,  and  by  preserving  peace,  truth,  and  good  order  in 
the  churches,  ought  to  be  the  grand  design  of  all  Christians,  and 
of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  particular.  But,  to  our  great 
concern  and  sorrow,  the  disorderly  intrusions  into  the  pastoral 
charges  of  ministers,  and  surmises  that  were  raised  to  blacken  their 
characters  as  carnal  and  unconverted ;  the  bold  violation  of  our 
synodical  acts  and  regulations,  and  the  new  method  of  itinerant 
preaching,  where  there  is  a  stated  gospel  ministry,  have,  in  a  great 
measure,  marred  this  noble  design,  by  rending  the  churches  of 
Christ,  and  filling  the  minds  of  the  people  with  uncharitable 
thoughts  of  one  another.  To  check  these  evils,  prevailing  by 
means  of  some  claiming  to  themselves  a  privilege,  under  pretence 
of  extraordinaries,  to  trample  under  foot  all  rights  of  mankind,  to 
destroy  all  pastoral  relation,  and  to  lay  aside,  at  least  for  a  season, 
that  form  of  government  and  discipline  that  was  practised  and  used 
in  our  churches ;  a  number  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  protested 
against  those  illegal  disorderly  practices  in  1741 ;  and  being  wearied 
out  with  fruitless  attempts  to  redress  these  delusive  unscriptural 
methods  of  proceeding,  determined  to  withdraw  from  synodical 
communion,  unless  those  who  were  guilty  of  such  practices  gave 
proper  satisfaction  according  to  gospel  rules.  The  majority  of  the 
Synod  then  present  made  this  protest  their  act,*  and  declared  that 
those  brethren  should  either  give  such  satisfaction,  or  withdraw 
from  membership ;  on  which  they  chose  to  withdraw. 

"  This  method  of  procedure  was  complained  of  next  year  as  con- 
trary to  the  method  of  proceeding  in  our  churches,  by  some  mem- 
bers that  were  absent  when  this  separation  was  made ;  upon  which 
it  was  proposed  that  the  whole  affair  should  be  reviewed  by  the 
Synod  then  met,  and  if  any  thing  was  found  illegal  it  should  be 
redressed.  But  these  brethren  could  find  clearness  to  do  nothing 
until   those   disorderly   brethren    who   withdrew,   should   again  be 

*  The  narrative  given  above,  shows  how  this  statement  is  to  be  understood. 
The  protesters  and  their  friends  were  a  majority  of  the  Synod,  but  the  pro- 
test was  not  adopted,  nor  were  the  Brunswick  brethren  excluded  by  any 
synodical  act. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  177 

allowed  to  take  their  seats  as  members,  which  the  majority  of  the 
Synod  could  not  comply  with.  Upon  which  they  entered  a  decla- 
ration against  the  method  of  proceeding  the  year  before.  At  our 
next  Synod  they  proposed  methods  for  healing  the  breach  between 
those  brethren  that  withdrew  and  the  Synod  ;  which  occasioned  the 
Synod  to  send  them  proposals  of  peace,  which  they  rejected,  and 
still  continued  their  divisive  practices  of  counteracting  the  Synod's 
regulations,  and  crumbling  of  congregations  to  pieces,  erecting 
altar  against  altar,  to  the  great  scandal  of  religion  and  the  ruin 
of  vital  piety.  Those  brethren  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
who  were  dissatisfied  at  the  method  by  which  that  party  stand 
excluded,  having  on  this  occasion  laboured  to  have  their  own 
scruples  removed,  and  at  the  same  time  to  have  peace  and  unity 
restored  among  all  that  were  ever  members  of  the  Synod,  all  the 
Synod  now  met  heartily  concur  with  them  in  this  noble  under- 
taking, if  it  can  be  obtained  in  such  a  method  as  may  and  will 
maintain  sound  doctrine,  and  preserve  the  peace  and  good  order  of 
the  church. 

"  In  order  to  accomplish  this,  these  brethren  proposed  it  as  an 
expedient  to  remove  their  scruples  and  heal  all  our  divisions,  that 
every  person  that  is  or  has  been  a  member,  shall  now  voluntarily 
subscribe  the  essential  agreements  on  Avhich  our  Synod  formerly 
was  established,  and  which  are  the  general  approved  agreements 
of  our  churches.  And  as  we  think  that  a  subscription  of  these 
articles  will  be  a  renouncing  disorder  and  divisive  practice,  and 
will,  when  obtained,  lay  a  foundation  for  maintaining  peace,  truth, 
and  good  order,  which  was  what  was  desired  in  the  protest,  by 
which  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  stand  excluded ;  we  therefore, 
in  compliance  with  request  of  these  brethren,  and  in  order  to  re- 
move all  scruples,  propose  that  all  that  are  now  or  ever  have  been 
members  of  this  Synod,  shall  subscribe  the  following  fundamental 
articles  and  agreements,  as  their  acts,  and  all  who  will  do  so  shall 
be  members  of  this  Synod. 

"  1.  That  in  all  prudential  acts  for  the  regular  management  of 
the  affairs  of  the  church  of  God  among  us,  every  member  shall 
either  actively  concur,  or  passively  submit  to  and  not  counteract, 
VOL.  II. — 12 


178  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCII 

such  tilings  as  are  determined  by  the  majority  as  being  founded 
upon  God's  word ;  or  if  any  do  declare  that  they  have  not  free- 
dom of  conscience  to  comply,  they  shall  withdraw,  and  no  more  be 
acknowledged  as  members  of  this  Synod,  unless  they  afterwards 
find  clearness,  and  so  return  and  comply. 

"  2.  That  if  any  member  suppose  he  has  reason  of  complaint 
against  any  of  his  brethren  for  unsound  doctrine,  irregularities  of 
life,  or  unfaithfulness  in  his  pastoral  office,  he  shall  proceed  in  a 
Christian  way  according  to  the  rules  of  God's  word,  and  our  known 
methods  of  discipline,  and  shall  not  in  public  or  private,  spread 
his  surmises,  offences,  or  scandals,  without  proceeding  as  aforesaid, 
or  else  be  accounted  guilty  of  unchristian  conduct,  and  liable  to 
censure.  Accordingly  we  look  upon  such  practices  to  be  contrary 
to  the  gospel,  and  of  pernicious  tendency  to  the  church  of  Christ. 

"3.  That  no  member  of  this  Synod  shall  preach  in  the  congre- 
gation of  another  brother,  without  judicial  appointment,  or  being 
invited  by  his  brother  to  preach  for  him,  and  whoever  acts  contrary 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  unbrotherly  treatment  and  divisive  prac- 
tice, and  be  censured  accordingly.  And  the  same  way  no  Presby- 
tery shall  invade  the  charge  and  rights  of  other  Presbyteries ;  and 
all  erections  within  the  bounds  of  regulated  congregations  that 
have  been  or  shall  be  set  up  by  such  itinerant  preaching  and  divi- 
sive practices,  shall  be  deemed  contrary  to  the  peace  and  good 
order  of  this  church,  and  consequently  shall  not  be  maintained  or 
supported  by  any  member  belonging  to  us. 

"  4.  We  agree  that  none  who  have  not  heretofore  enjoyed  mem- 
bership in  this  Synod,  shall  be  admitted  hereto  without  submitting 
to  the  manner  of  admission  determined  by  our  former  acts,  and 
such  as  may  and  shall  be  provided  in  that  case,  and  complying 
with  these  general  articles  now  agreed  upon.  And  all  such  as  upon 
proper  trial  shall  be  duly  qualified  with  respect  to  learning,  sound- 
ness in  the  faith,  and  a  gospel  conversation,  shall,  upon  agreeing 
to  these  articles,  and  submitting  to  our  method  of  church  govern- 
ment, be  cordially  admitted  to  synodical  communion. 

"  5.  We  agree  that  each  member  of  this  Synod  shall  keep  a  day 
of  public  and  solemn  fasting,  and    thereupon  confess  and  bewail 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  179 

the  prevailing  evils  of  infidelity,  profaneness,  the  untenderness  and 
barrenness  of  professors,  and  the  decay  of  religion  in  general,  and 
particularly  the  debates,  divisive  practices,  uncharitable  censures, 
and  unbrotherly  treatment  that  have  torn  and  divided  the  church 
of  Christ  in  these  parts,  to  the  dishonour  of  God,  the  hurt  of  prac- 
tical piety,  the  offence  and  scandal  of  the  weak,  and  the  harden- 
ing of  the  wicked,  and  the  opening  the  mouths  of  the  profane ; 
and  deprecate  the  divine  displeasure,  and  implore  the  blessing  of 
God  upon  this  and  all  other  proper  means  for  the  advancement  of 
pure  and  undefiled  religion,  and  the  maintaining  and  propagating 
the  great  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  the  peace,  unity,  and  increase 
of  this  infant  church."  * 

The  New  York  brethren  immediately  refused  to  accede  to  this 
plan  of  union.  This  result  must  excite  surprise,  when  it  is  remem- 
bered how  nearly  identical  the  terms  here  offered  are  with  those 
which  those  brethren  had  previously  proposed.  The  plan  happily 
avoided  the  necessity  of  concession  on  either  side,  by  placing  both 
parties  on  the  same  ground,  and  commencing  de  novo,  with  a  re- 
newed subscription  of  their  original  principles  of  agreement.  It 
is  difficult  to  see  to  which  of  the  above  articles  exception  could 
have  been  taken.  Certainly  not  to  the  first,  for  that  was  adopted 
almost  verbatim  as  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  new 
Synod.  Not  to  the  second,  for  that  was  borrowed  from  the  pre- 
vious proposals  made  by  the  New  York  Presbytery.  Not  to  the 
former  part  of  the  third,  for  the  right  of  a  minister  to  his  own 
pulpit  could  hardly  be  seriously  questioned.  It  is  probable  that 
the  difficulty  was  with  the  latter  part  of  the  third  article,  which 
required  that  the  new  congregations  formed  by  separatists  from 
the  older  ones  should  be  given  up.  This  was  a  real  difficulty,  and 
embarrassed  the  negotiations  for  a  union  at  a  much  later  period. 
These  congregations  had  now  been  formed  for  some  years  ;  and  the 
people  were  doubtless  unwilling  to  return  to  their  old  pastors. 
Under  these  circumstances  the  men  by  whose  influence  they  had 
been  induced  to  separate,  could  hardly  be  expected  to  give  them 
up.     Some  years  after  this,  when  Mr.   Tennent  was  earnestly  de- 

*  Minutes  of  Synod,  vol.  iii.  pp.  11,  12. 


180  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

sirous  of  a  re-union,  lie  found  his  greatest  difficulty  with  these  peo- 
ple, and  wrote  his  Irenicum  principally  to  answer  their  objections 
and  allay  their  feelings.  Some  of  them  never  would  come  in,  but 
when,  after  a  schism  of  seventeen  years,  the  two  Synods  were 
united,  left  the  church  and1  joined  the  Scotch  Seceders. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  grounds  of  objection,  the  New 
York  brethren  immediately  rejected  the  plan  above  mentioned,  and 
proposed  that  "it  be  mutually  agreed  that  they  be  allowed,  with 
the  consent  of  this  body,  to  erect  another  Synod,  under  the  name 
of  the  Synod  of  New  York."  To  this  proposal  the  following 
answer  was  returned :'"  The  unhappy  divisions  which  have  sub- 
sisted among  us  for  some  years,  cannot  but  deeply  affect  all  that 
wish  the  welfare  of  Zion ;  and  it  particularly  affects  us  that  some 
of  our  brethren  of  New  York  do  not  at  present  see  their  way  clear 
to  continue  in  synodical  communion  with  us.  And  though  we  judge 
that  they  have  no  just  ground  to  withdraw  from  us,  yet  seeing  they 
propose  to  erect  themselves  into  a  Synod  at  New  York,  and  now 
desire  to  do  this  in  the  most  friendly  manner  possible,  we  declare, 
if  they  or  any  of  them  do  sor  we  shall  endeavour  to  maintain  cha- 
ritable and  Christian  affections  towards  them,  and  show  the  same 
upon  all  occasions,  by  such  correspondence  and  fellowship  as  we 
shall  think  duty,  and  consistent  with  a  good  conscience."* 

The  schism  was  thus  consummated,  and  the  Synod  of  New  York 
met  as  a  separate  and  independent  body,  at  Eliaabethtown,  Sep- 
tember 19,  1745. 

The  above  narrative  will  disclose  the  real  causes  of  the  schism. 
It  was  not  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  doctrine  or  discipline,  but  loss 
of  confidence  and  alienation  of  feeling  arising  from  the  different 
views  entertained  of  the  revival  which  then  prevailed.  The  same 
causes,  which  at  this  period  divided  the  churches  of  New  England, 
rent  asunder  the  Presb}7terian  Church.  Opposition  to  the  revival 
was  the  standing  charge  against  the  one  party,  and  was  the  uniform 
apology  for  the  denunciations,  intrusions,  separations,  and  disobe- 
dience to  the  Synod,  which  formed  the  grounds  of  complaint 
against  the  other.     Was  this  opposition  to  the  revival  an  opposi- 

*  Minutes  of  Synod,,  vol.  iii.  p.  13. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  18  L 

fcion  to  evangelical  religion,  or  merely  to  extravagance  and  dis- 
order ?  On  the  part  of  some  few  individuals,  it  is  to  be  feared  it 
was  the  former ;  characteristically  and  generally  it  was  the  latter. 
This  appears,  in  the  first  place,  from  the  fact  that  the  opposition 
did  not  commence  until  the  extravagances  and  disorders  made  their 
appearance.  This  change  of  sentiment  is  made  matter  of  reproach 
by  Mr.  Tennent.  "  What  is  the  reason,"  he  asks,  "  that  our  pro- 
testing brethren  were  so  full  in  favour  of  the  work  of  God  last 
year,  in  their  speeches  and  acknowledgments,  and  that  they  make 
no  honourable  mention  of  it  in  their  protest  this  year  ?  Has  a 
little  space  of  time  altered  the  nature  of  things  ?"  *  The  same 
men  also  who  were  most  active  in  their  opposition  to  the  revival, 
under  the  form  which  it  assumed  in  Pennsylvania,  approved  and 
rejoiced  in  all  they  saw  of  its  effects  in  Virginia.^ 

In  the  second  place,  all  the  objections  urged  in  any  of  the  wri- 
tings which  had  any  claim  to  represent  the  opinions  of  the  party, 
were  directed  against  what  was  really  objectionable. J  In  1740, 
there  was  a  paper  presented  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  con- 
taining complaints  against  Mr.  Whitefield,  in  the  form  of  queries, 
and  hence  called  the  Querists.  It  consisted  principally  of  various 
extracts  from  Mr.  Whitefield's  writings,  which  were  deemed  objec- 
tionable. Its  authors,  for  example,  find  fault  with  him  for  saying 
that  man  at  his  creation  was  "  adorned  with  all  the  perfections  of 

*  Remarks  on  the  Protest,  p.  21. 

f  This  fact  is  stated  particularly  in  reference  to  Mr.  Thompson,  by  Mr. 
Davies,  in  his  account  of  the  revival  in  Virginia,  republished  in  Gillies'  Col- 
lections. 

X  There  were  some  anonymous  pamphlets  published  during  this  period, 
which  gave  great  and  probably  just  offence.  One  is  particularly  mentioned, 
entitled  "  The  History  of  a  Wandering  Spirit,"  which  Mr.  Blair  calls  a 
"  scurrilous  lampoon."  It  was  attributed  to  Mr.  Samuel  Evans,  who,  how- 
ever, denied  being  its  author ;  and  it  was  never  acknowledged  by  any  indi- 
vidual or  party.  Mr.  Tennent  says,  on  this  subject,  "  Seeing  that  piece  was 
anonymous,  and  was  never  owned  by  our  brethren  as  a  body,  it  cannot,  with- 
out manifest  injustice,  be  ascribed  to  them  as  such  ;  nor  is  there  any  certain 
or  sufficient  proof,  that  ever  it  was  owned  or  approved  of  in  all  its  parts,  by 
any  one  of  them,  so  far  as  I  know." — Irenicum,  p.  120. 


382  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

the  Deity ;  '  that  the  believer  "  washes  away  the  guilt  of  sin  by 
the  tears  of  a  sincere  repentance,  joined  with  faith  in  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ."  They  charged  him  with  denying  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  running  into  antinomianism  in  his  letter  against  the 
book  called  the  Whole  Duty  of  Man.  They  objected  to  his  saying 
that  men  were  baptized  "  into  the  nature  of  the  Father,  the  nature 
of  the  Son,  and  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;"  that  the  believer 
depends  on  "the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to,  and  inherent 
in  him."  They  were  offended  with  his  claiming  immediate  inspira- 
tion in  such  passages  as  the  following :  "  There  will  certainly  be  a 
fulfilling  of  those  things  which  God,  by  his  Spirit,  has  spoken  in 
my  soul,"  and,  "  There  are  many  promises  to  be  fulfilled  in  me." 
They  did  not  know  how  to  understand  his  saying,  "  Now  know  I 
that  I  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  at  the  imposition  of  hands. 
For  I  feel  it  as  much  as  Elisha  did,  when  Elijah  dropped  his  mantle. 
Nay  others  see  it  also."  They  objected  also  to  his  saying  of  the 
Quakers,  "  I  think  their  notions  about  walking  and  being  led  by 
the  Spirit  right  and  good."  * 

*  Mr.  AVhitefield  soon  published  a  letter  in  reply  to  the  Querists,  in  which 
he  frankly  retracted,  or  satisfactorily  explained  most  of  the  passages  above 
cited. 

Mr.  Charles  Tennent  got  into  trouble  by  defending  some  of  the  expressions 
which  Mr.  Whitefield  afterwards  retracted. 

Mr.  Blair  published  a  severe  reply  to  the  Querists,  whose  publication  he 
ascribed  to  Mr.  Evans  of  Pencader.  The  true  reason,  he  says,  of  the  oppo- 
sition to  Mr.  Whitefield  was,  the  work  of  God  had  begun  to  prevail,  and  this 
by  all  means  must  be  put  a  stop  to,  and  the  former  quiet  be  restored,  though 
thousands  should  perish.  Dead,  secure  formalists,  who  know  nothing  of  the 
regenerating  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  of  lively  heart  exercises  in 
religion,  are  likely  to  lose  their  former  high  reputation  in  religion,  and  ground- 
less confidence  in  the  goodness  of  their  own  state,  which  they  are  not  content 
to  part  with.  Especially  when  the  people  are  awakened,  they  cannot  be  sat- 
isfied with  the  sapless,  careless  ministers ;  this  goes  hard  with  these  piovs 
ministers.  (So  printed.)  Thus  the  success  of  the  gospel  is  very  unwelcome 
to  many  of  its  professed  friends.  Moreover,  Mr.  Whitefield  speaks  much 
against  unexperienced,  blind,  and  unfaithful  ministers,  who  settle  people  upou 
the  lees  of  their  natural  and  fatal  security,  and  hereupon,  as  if  their  uwu 
consciences  secretly  told  them,  they  were  the  men,  or  that  their  management 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  183 

Mr.  Thompson  specifies  the  things  of  which  he  and  his  friends 
complained  in  the  advocates  of  the  revival :  1.  Their  bold  and 
uncharitable  condemnation  of  their  brethren  as  graceless.  2.  Their 
umvearied  industry  to  possess  the  people  with  prejudices  against 
their  pastors.  3.  Their  irregular  intrusions  into  other  men's 
charges.  4.  Their  teaching  that  every  true  Christian  is  sure  of 
his  own  conversion,  and  that  no  adult  can  be  converted  without 
undergoing  legal,  ungracious,  preparatory  convictions.  As  to  the 
effects  of  their  preaching  he  objected,  1.  To  the  crying  out  during 
worship,  to  the  falling  down,  and  convulsions  which  were  encouraged 
by  them.*  2.  To  the  despairing  terrors  which  flow  from  unbelief. 
3.  To  the  delusions  of  some  of  their  followers ;  as  that  they  had 
seen  Christ,  or  a  great  light,  during  their  devotions.  4.  To  the 
censorious  spirit  with  which  they  seem  to  be  immediately  affected. 
"It  is,"  he  adds,  "a  downright  calumny  and  slander  to  allege  that 
we  prejudice  the  people  against  the  work  of  God,  because  we  some- 
times declare  our  judgment  against  such  particulars  as  these,  which 
we  verily  are  persuaded  are  not  the  work  of  God  either  in  minis- 
ters or  people."  He  admits  that  "a  great  many  have  been  stirred 
up  to  more  serious  thoughts  about  their  soul's  concerns  than  ever 
before,  which  is  a  thing  truly  to  be  rejoiced  in ;  and  many,  it  is 
said,  are  much  reformed  in  several  particulars  of  moral  practice, 
which  also  is  just  matter  of  satisfaction. "f 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Tennent,  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  opposition  of  his  brethren  to  the  revival,  will,  doubtless,  be 
regarded  by  many  as  of  more  weight  than  their  own  declarations. 

was  such,  that  they  would  surely  come  under  suspicion,  many  are  exceedingly 
vexed. — See  Consideration  of  the  Querists,  pp.  7,  8. 

*  That  opposition  to  those  bodily  agitations  which  attended  the  revival,  was 
regarded  by  its  friends  as  a  ground  of  complaint  against  their  brethren,  appears 
from  many  passages  of  their  writings.  Thus,  Mr.  Blair  censures  those  who 
he  said  "  lash  and  reproach  in  unlimited  terms,  as  the  mere  effects  of  irrational 
frights  or  delusive  joys,  all  crying  out  and  bodily  faintings,  when  such  things 
may  be,  and  in  numbers  have  been  the  effects  of  the  rational,  spiritual,  strong 
exercises  of  the  soul,  from  the  laws  of  the  union  between  the  soul  and  the 
body."— Works,  p.  288. 

f  Government  of  the  Church,  pp.  33,  34. 


ISA  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

He  then  testifies  distinctly,  that  the  opposition  was  not  to  experi- 
mental religion,  but  to  the  extravagances  and  disorders  which  at 
that  period  so  much  prevailed.  lt  I  cannot  but  believe,"  he  says, 
"  that  reverend  brethren  upon  both  sides  of  the  question,  had  sin- 
cere and  good  designs .  in  the  different  parts  which  they  bore  in  the 
late  controversy.  While  some  were  earnestly  contending  for  the 
credit  of  the  late  extraordinary  religious  appearances,  with  design 
that  they  might  spread  far  and  wide ;  others  were  strenuously  con- 
tending for  the  order  and  government  of  Christ's  kingdom,  lest 
they  should  suffer  and  be  quite  unhinged  in  the  uncommon  situa- 
tion and  ferment  that  obtained  among  the  churches.  But  though 
the  things  controverted,  considered  calmly  and  in  a  true  distinct 
light,  were  small,  yet  the  heat  of  debate  about  them  run  very  high. 
This,  together  with  evil  surmisings,  severe  censurings,  and  rash 
judgings  of  each  other,  encouraged  and  inflamed  by  misrepresent- 
ations, carried  to  and  from  by  the  unwearied  industry  of  tale-bearers 
and  tattlers,  who  are  generally  busy  on  such  occasions,  increased 
mutual  prejudices  and  suspicions  to  a  melancholy  crisis,  and  occa- 
sioned the  unhappy  rupture  of  the  church's  union,  which  has  sub- 
sisted among  us  for  some  years."* 

In  the  body  of  the  work  just  cited,  he  still  more  explicitly  denies 
that  the  essentials  of  religion  were  involved  in  the  controversy. 
"What  is  it,"  he  asks,  "that  is  disputed?  Is  it  the  necessity  of 
conversion  to  God,  in  order  to  salvation?  No;  that  i^  freely 
acknowledged  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  Is  it  the  nature  of 
conversion  proposed  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  our  excellent  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  agreeable  thereto  ?  No  ;  for  that  is  likewise  acknow- 
ledged by  both  the  contending  parties.  Is  it  the  marks  and  signs 
of  conversion  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  ?  No ;  for  these  are 
also  confessed  by  persons  of  both  sides.  Is  it  the  reality  of  those 
instances  of  conversion  contained  in  the  Bible  ?  No  ;  the  divine 
authority  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  is  equally  asserted  by  both  par- 
ties in  controversy.  Is  it  whether  some  have  been  converted  in  the 
successive  ages  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  apostles'  times  to 
the  present  day ;  and  whether  some  have  not  been  converted  m 

*  Irenicum,  Preface,  p.  G. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  185 

this  age,  and  in  this  part  of  the  world,  and  whether  good  has  not 
been  done,  and  some  effectually  changed,  to  all  appearance,  during 
the  late  revival  of  religion  ?  No  ;  for  these  are  also  acknowledged. 
What  then  is  it  that  is  controverted  ?  Why  our  opinion  respecting 
the  religious  experiences  of  some  in  the  late  times,  and  concerning 
the  number  of  such.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  those  expe- 
riences were  of  a  saving  kind,  and  whether  the  number  is  so  great 
as  is  concluded  by  some.  And  is  our  opinion  concerning  what  we 
cannot  certainly  know  a  great  matter,  think  ye  ?  Or,  are  we  infal- 
lible in  our  judgment  about  these  things  which  are  hidden  from  the 
view  of  mortals  ?  If  not,  why  is  all  this  heat  and  flame  about 
uncertainties  ?"* 

Again  :  "  I  must  in  justice  add  to  what  has  been  offered,  that 
the  reverend  brethren,  who  cast  us  out  of  synodical  communion,  do 
deny  the  charge  of  endeavouring  to  prejudice  the  people  against 
the  power  and  grace  of  God  in  the  conversion  of  sinners,  wherever 
there  is  any  hopeful  appearance  of  it.  Mr.  John  Thompson,  in 
their  name,  observes  on  this  head  as  follows :  '  It  is  true,  there 
are  some  things  in  our  brethren's  conduct  which  we  cannot  but 
condemn,  and  have  condemned  and  spoken  against  both  in  private 
and  public ;  and  some  things  also  which  are  the  frequent  effects  of 
their  preaching  on  many  of  their  hearers,  which  we  cannot  esteem 
of  as  highly  as  both  they  and  their  admirers  do.'  Among  which 
he  mentions  crying  out  aloud  in  the  midst  of  the  congregation  in 
the  time  of  public  worship,  and  others  falling  down  half  dead,  or 
working  like  persons  in  convulsion  fits.  And  in  another  paragraph, 
he  speaks  in  the  following  candid,  charitable  strain,  to  the  honour 
of  the  late  revival  of  religion,  and  to  the  honour  of  the  ministers 
he  opposed."  Mr.  Tennent  then  quotes  from  Mr.  Thompson  the 
passage  cited  above, f  and  several  others  to  the  same  effect,!  an(^ 

*  Irenicuin,  p.  84.  f  Page  222. 

t  Among  the  passages  quoted  by  Mr.  Tennent  are  the  following:  "  How- 
ever, we  rejoice  that  the  great  God,  who  rules  all  events  to  his  own  glory 
and  the  good  of  his  church,  doth  make  the  gospel  preached  by  our  brethren 
effectual  in  many  to  stir  them  up  to  a  more  serious  consideration  of  their 
Bouls'  concerns  than  ever  before.     I  also  hope  that  our  gracious  Lord  will  give 


186  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

adds:  "Seeing  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Thompson  appeared  as  the 
apologist  of  the  present  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  it  may  reasonably 
be  presumed  that  he  speaks  the  mind  at  least  of  the  majority  of 
that  body ;  and  therefore  it  is  evident  from  the  aforesaid  passages, 
that  they  were  far  from  opposing,  (with  design,)  the  late  revival 
of  religion  ;  that  on  the  contrary,  they  expressly  acknowledged  it, 
rejoiced  in  it,  and  prayed  for  its  increase  ;  yea,  in  several  instances, 
as  humbly  as  publicly  acknowledged  their  own  imperfections  in 
relation  to  the  present  debate.  Do  not  the  aforesaid  passages 
breathe  the  candid,  humble  spirit  of  true  Christianity  ?  Why, 
therefore,  is  the  string  of  acknowledgments  so  much  harped  upon  ? 
Pray,  have  we  done  in  this  as  much  as  our  brethren  ?  or  are  we, 
forsooth,  absolutely  perfect  and  infallible,  even  in  a  time  of  tempta- 
tion and  debate?"*  In  several  other  passages  he  vindicates  the 
Synod  from  the  charge  of  opposing  the  revival  of  religion,  properly 
so  called,  and  shows  that  their  opposition  was  confined  to  the 
extravagances  and  disorders  above  specified. f 

It  is,  indeed,  hard  to  believe  that  this  is  the  same  Mr.  Tennent, 
who,  a  few  years  before,  denounced  these  same  brethren  as  the 
enemies  of  all  religion,  as  men  willing  to  resort  to  any  falsehood 
or  calumny  to  cloak  their  "  horrible  wickedness  in  opposing  God's 
work."  Mr.  Thompson  was  frequently  specified  by  name  as  an 
example  of  the  class  of  unconverted  pharisee  preachers,  and  his 
opposition  to  the  work  of  God  ascribed  to  the  worst  motives.  What 
makes  this  case  the  more  remarkable  and  the  more  instructive,  is, 
that  the  work  which  Mr.  Tennent,  in  1749,  could  see  "  breathed 
the  candid  and  humble  spirit  of  true  Christianity,"  was  published 
by  Mr.  Thompson  in  1741,  that  is,  during  the  very  heat  of  the 

us,  who  are  in  the  ministry,  grace  to  observe  and  obey  his  voice  by  his  provi- 
dence to  us,  to  search  and  try  our  ways,  and  turn  again  unto  the  Lord."' 
Again:  "I  think  it  not  unlikely  that  God,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  hath  per- 
mitted our  hrethren,  who  appear  to  be  so  much  more  zealous  than  we  for  car- 
rying on  the  work  of  conversion,  which  they  apprehend  is  wholly  neglected  by 
us,  as  it  is  indeed  too  much,  to  be  instruments  in  the  Lord's  hands  to  chastise 
us  f  >r  our  neglects  and  shortcomings/' 

*  Irenicum,  p.  86.  f  Ibid.  pp.  120,'  121,  122. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  187 

debate.  It  contained  then,  all  the  evidence  of  a  Christian  spirit 
that  it  did  seven  years  afterwards.  Yet  Mr.  Tennent  at  that  time 
could  see  nothing  good  either  in  it  or  its  author.  This,  though  a 
striking,  is  not  a  solitary  illustration  of  the  fact  that,  during  times 
of  religious  excitement,  the  evil  as  well  as  the  good  feelings  even 
of  true  Christians,  are  often  brought  into  vigorous  exercise.  It 
appears  then,  as  well  from  the  testimony  of  the  men  themselves, 
as  from  that  of  their  opponents,  that  the  opposition  to  the  revival 
of  which  so  much  complaint  was  made,  was  an  opposition  to  the 
extravagance  and  disorder  which  marked  its  course,  and  not  an 
opposition  to  evangelical  religion.* 

With  regard  to  the  importance  of  learning  in  the  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  there  was  no  real  difference  of  opinion  between  the  two 
parties.  As  the  Synod's  object  in  the  act  about  the  examination 
of  ministers,  was  to  secure  an  adequately  learned  ministry,  and  as 
Mr.  Tennent  opposed  that  act,  he  brought  himself  under  the  sus- 
picion of  slighting  the  importance  of  learning.  This  suspicion  was 
increased  by  the  manner  in  which  he  sometimes  allowed  himself  to 
speak  of  letter-learned  pharisees,  "  who  came  out,  no  doubt,  after 
they  had  been  the  usual  time  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  acts,  canons,  and  traditions  of  the  Jewish  church  ;"f  by 
the  avowal  of  his  determination  to  oppose  the  design  of  the  Synod 
to  establish  a  public  seminary  ;|  and  the  hasty  manner  in  which 
his  Presbytery  sometimes  passed  over  the  trials  of  their  candidates. 

Mr.  Tennent's  opposition,  however,  to  the  Synod's  act,  requiring 
a  college  diploma  of  candidates  for  the  ministry,  did  not  arise  from 
a  disregard  of  learning,  but  from  want  of  confidence  in  the  exist- 
ing colleges.§  The  same  motive  influenced  him  in  his  opposition  to 
the  plan  of  the  Synod  respecting  a  seminary.  It  was  not  to  learn- 
ing, but  to  a  school  under  the  control  of  the  Synod  that  he  objected. 

*  In  further  proof  of  this  point,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  Plan  of  Union, 
unanimously  adopted  by  both  Synods,  in  1758,  in  which  the  fullest  and  most 
explicit  testimony  is  given  to  the  truth  and  necessity  of  experimental  religion. 
See  the  conclusion  of  the  following  chapter. 

T  Nottingham  sermon,  p.  1.  J  Minutes  of  the  Synod,  vol.  iii. 

J  This  is  expressed  in  his  Nottingham  sermon,  p.  11. 


188  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

In  his  sermons  against  the  Moravians,  published  in  1742,  he  insisted 
upon  the  necessity  of  learning  in  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  with  al1 
his  characteristic  ardour.  "  In  order  to  preserve  ourselves  and  our 
posterity,"  he  says,  "from  the  infection  of  error,  I  think  it  is  need- 
ful to  use,  in  our  proper  sphere,  all  suitable  means  to  obtain  a  godly, 
learned,  and  regular  ministry.  When  ignorant  novices  are  admit- 
ted into  the  ministerial  order,  they  are  apt  to  be  puffed  up,  to  the 
church's  great  prejudice,  as  well  as  their  own  ;  and  to  spread  error, 
when  they  know  it  not.  To  say  that  these  qualifications  may  be 
ordinarily  attained  without  human  learning,  is  notoriously  enthusi- 
astical  and  foolish.  In  short,  either  human  learning  is  necessary, 
or  there  must  be  inspiration  to  supply  the  want  thereof."  The 
efforts  which  he  and  his  friends  made  to  establish  the  college  of 
New  Jersey,  show  that  he  fully  appreciated  the  importance  of  this 
subject. 

There  was  also  an  essential  agreement  between  the  two  parties 
on  points  of  doctrine.  This  is  proved  by  the  explicit  testimony  of 
Mr.  Tennent.  "Upon  the  one  hand,"  he  says,  "the  nature  and 
necessity  of  conversion  to  God,  as  represented  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  according  to  them,  were  acknow- 
ledged, and  only  the  opinion  of  some  concerning  the  reality  or 
number  of  some  late  instances  of  conversion,  (or  respecting  both 
together,)  disputed  and  contradicted ;  so  upon  the  other  hand,  the 
nature  and  necessity  of  order  and  government  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  as  they  are  represented  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  our 
Directory,  according  to  them,  were  also  acknowledged,  and  only 
some  prudential  rules  and  acts,  not  expressed  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures, or  our  Directory,  for  worship  and  government,  disputed  and 
opposed.  The  substance  of  the  points  in  dispute  was  freely  acknow- 
ledged by  reverend  brethren  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  viz. 
the  nature  and  necessity  of  conversion,  as  held  forth  in  fche  Scrip- 
tures, and  in  our  Confession  of  Faith  ;  and  the  nature  and  neces- 
sity of  church  discipline,  (in  all  essentials,)  as  represented  in  the 
holy  Scriptures,  and  in  our  Directory,  so  that  the  controversy,  in 
my  apprehension,  turns  entirely  upon  circumstantials."* 

*  Irenicum,  preface,  p.  5. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  189 

A  more  important  evidence  is  to  be  found  in  the  "  Declaration 
of  the  conjunct  Presbyteries  of  New  Brunswick  and  New  Castle," 
issued  immediately  after  the  schism.  Those  Presbyteries  say : 
"We  think  it  proper,  for  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerning  us,  and 
as  a  due  testimony  to  the  truth  of  God,  to  declare  and  testify  to 
the  world  our  principles  and  sentiments  in  religion,  according  to 
which  we  design,  through  divine  grace,  ever  to  conduct  ourselves, 
both  as  Christians,  and  as  ministers,  and  as  ruling  elders. 

"  And  first,  as  to  the  doctrines  of  religion,  we  believe  with  our 
heart,  and  profess  and  maintain  with  our  lips,  the  doctrines  summed 
up  and  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms,  composed  by  the  reverend  assembly  of  divines 
at  Westminster,  as  the  truths  of  God  revealed  and  contained  in  the 
holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments ;  and  do  receive, 
acknowledge,  and  declare  the  said  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chisms to  be  the  confession  of  our  faith ;  yet  so  as  that  no  part  of 
the  twenty-third  chapter  of  said  Confession  shall  be  so  construed 
as  to  allow  civil  magistrates,  as  such,  to  have  any  ecclesiastical 
authority  in  Synods,  or  church  judicatories,  much  less  the  power 
of  a  negative  voice  over  them  in  their  ecclesiastical  transactions : 
nor  is  any  part  of  it  to  be  understood  as  opposite  to  the  memorable 
revolution  and  the  settlement  of  the  crown  of  the  three  kingdoms 
in  the  illustrious  house  of  Hanover."*  Exeeptio  probat  regulam. 
The  exception  here  made  to  certain  parts  of  the  twenty-third  chap- 
ter, proves  the  adoption  of  all  the  rest.  This  is  as  strict  an  adop- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  was  ever  made  by  any  Synod  in 
our  church.  Besides  this  decisive  declaration,  reference  might  be 
made  to  the  fact,  that  during  all  the  protracted  negotiations  for  a 
union,  there  wa«  not  a  word  said  about  doctrinal  differences.  Each 
Synod  spoke  of  the  other  as  holding  the  same  system  of  doctrines. 

Though  there  was  this  substantial  agreement,  there  were  several 
points,  which,  while  the  excitement  lasted,  were  matters  of  keen 
dispute.  It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  Mr.  Tennent  had  a 
doctrinal  controversy  with  David  Cowell,  a  New  England  gentle- 
man, pastor  of  the  church  in  Trenton.     The  subject  of  dispute,  it 

*  See  the  Detector  Detected,  p.  125. 


190  PRESBYTLL  IAN     CHURCH 

will  be  remembered,  was,  whether  the  glory  of  God  or  the  happi- 
ness of  the  agent,  was  the  ultimate  ground  of  moral  obligation. 
Mr.  Tennent,  in  the  paper  presented  to  the  Synod  in  1740,  charged 
his  brethren  with  holding  false  doctrine  on  this  subject.  With  re- 
spect to  this  charge,  it  may  be  remarked,  1.  That  we  never  hear 
of  it  again.  It  was  never  renewed,  and  never  became  a  matter  of 
discussion  between  the  two  parties.  2.  That  the  charge,  as  far  as 
it  bore  on  the  members  of  the  Synod  at  all,  bore  particularly  upon 
the  committee  of  which  President  Dickinson  was  chairman,  and  of 
which  other  gentlemen  were  members,  who  are  known  to  have  re- 
pudiated the  doctrine  imputed  to  them.  3.  That  the  Synod,  by  an 
unanimous  vote,  condemned  the  doctrine  that  self-love  is  the  ulti- 
mate foundation  of  moral  obligation.  The  Synod,  therefore,  are 
clear  in  this  matter.  Mr.  Cowell  is  the  only  member  to  whom  even 
suspicion  can  attach  in  relation  to  it. 

A  subject  much  disputed  at  this  time,  was  the  nature  of  convic- 
tion. Mr.  Thompson  published  a  sermon  under  the  title,  "  The 
Doctrine  of  Conviction  set  in  a  clear  light."  Of  this  sermon  Mr. 
Tennent,  in  1743,  expressed  himself  in  very  severe  terms.  Speak- 
ing of  his  brethren,  he  says,  "  They  likewise  opposed  God's  work, 
by  their  false  and  dangerous  Moravian  doctrine  about  conviction. 
Witness  Mr.  Thompson's  detestable  and  inconsistent  performance, 
entitled,  The  Doctrine  of  Conviction  set  in  a  clear  light ;  which 
divers  leaders  of  that  schismatical  party  have  expressed  their  ap- 
probation of.  Hardly  any  thing  can  be  invented  that  has  a  more 
direct  tendency  to  destroy  the  common  operations  of  God's  Holy 
Spirit,  and  to  keep  men  from  Jesus  Christ,  than  what  Mr.  Thomp- 
son has  expressed  in  that  performance."*  Mr.  Samuel  Finley 
wrote  an  answer  to  the  sermon,  in  which  he  condemns  it  in  terms 
scarcely  less  severe,  f  Mr.  Thompson's  sermon  is  a  long  and  ex- 
cellent discourse  on  1  Cor.  iii.  12,  13:  "Now  if  any  man  build 
upon  this  foundation,  gold,  silver,  precious  stones,  wood,  hay,  stub- 
ble, &c."  in  which  the  author  examined  several  doctrines  then  pre- 

*  Examiner  Examined,  p.  17. 

t  Examination  and  Refutation  of  Mr.  Thompson's  sermon,  entitled,  &e  By 
Samuel  Finley,  Philadelphia,  1743.  V 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  191 

valmt.  The  first  of  these  he  thus  states:  "Before  there  be  so 
much  as  a  beginning  of  any  saving  work  of  grace,  or  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  heart  of  the  sinner,  there  must  be  an  awakening  con- 
viction of  sin  and  misery  raised  in  the  soul  in  a  way  of  common 
operation ;  which  convictions  are  previously  necessary  to  prepare 
the  heart  for  saving  grace,  but  are  void  of  saving  grace  them- 
selves."* Before  refuting  this  doctrine  he  premises  several  gene- 
ral observations,  which  are  in  substance  as  follows  :  1.  That  when 
the  Holy  Spirit  begins  a  supernatural  work  in  the  heart,  he  does 
not  implant  first  one  grace  and  then  another ;  but  that  true  grace 
is  one  entire  radical  principle,  the  seed  and  root  of  all  particular 
graces ;  just  as  natural  life  manifests  itself  in  various  exercises. 
2.  Consequently  when  any  one  grace  is  evident  in  its  exercises,  all 
other  graces  of  the  Spirit  are  to  be  found  in  the  same  person, 
though  they  may  not  be  so  conspicuous.  3.  That  these  different 
graces  are  not  so  distinct  as  we  are  apt  to  imagine,  as  though  they 
were  separate  entities,  which  may  exist  independently  of  each 
other ;  whereas  they  differ  only  in  their  object  and  in  the  manner 
of  their  exercise,  yet  are  the  same  principle  of  grace  putting  forth 
its  various  actings,  according  to  the  variety  of  occasions  and  ob- 
jects. 4.  That  although  we  properly  form  different  apprehensions 
of  these  several  graces,  yet  as  they  are  radically  one,  it  will  be 
found  that  no  one  can  be  alone  in  its  exercise  any  more  than  in  its 
existence. 

Having  prepared  the  way  by  these  remarks,  he  takes  up  the 
subject  of  "preparatory  ungracious  convictions,"  with  regard  to 
which  he  concedes,  1.  That  there  are  common  convictions  arising 
from  natural  conscience,  or  a  common  work  of  the  Spirit,  which 
often  fall  short  of  conversion.  2.  That  such  convictions  may  be 
followed  by  true  conversion  ;  but  when  this  happens  the  conversion 
is  not  the  proper  effect  of  those  convictions.  3.  That  we  should 
distinguish  between  those  convictions  which  are  common  and  those 
which  are  the  effect  of  saving  grace.  The  latter  possess  the  s<3ul 
with  a  sense  of  the  vileness,  baseness,  and  hateful  nature  of  sin, 
as  offensive  to  God;  but  the  former  only  ala~m  the  soul  with  the 

*  Sermon,  p.  13 


192  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

danger  of  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  Gracious  conviction  is 
always  attended  with  grief  for  sin,  on  account  of  its  own  sinful- 
ness, and  the  person's  vileness  on  account  of  it,  who  loathes  him- 
self, and  reckons  himself  among  the  basest  and  most  disgraceful 
creatures  upon  God's  earth  ;  whereas  in  common  convictions,  the 
hatred  conceived  against  sin  is  only  on  account  of  its  pernicious 
consequences.  Saving  convictions,  again,  are  always  accompanied 
with  love  to  God,  to  holiness,  and  to  the  saints.  Sin  becomes  a 
burden  to  those  thus  convinced,  under  which  they  groan.  In  com- 
mon convictions  there  is  no  love  to  holiness  for  its  own  sake,  but 
only  for  its  reward.  Again,  saving  conviction,  though  it  may  take 
its  rise  from  some  notorious  sin,  does  not  stop  there,  but  traces  up 
all  actual  sin  to  the  fountain  head,  the  indwelling  wickedness  of 
the  heart  and  corruption  of  nature  ;  whereas  common  convictions 
are  ordinarily  confined  to  actual  transgressions.  The  former  con- 
tinue an  ingredient  in  the  believer's  exercises  through  life ;  tne 
latter,  for  the  most  part,  are  at  an  end  as  soon  as  the  person  con- 
cerned gets  hope  or  comfort  from  any  source.  And  finally,  we 
should  distinguish  between  convictions,  whether  saving  or  common, 
and  the  terror  which  may  accompany  or  follow  them.  The  former 
consists  in  our  persuasion  of  our  sinful  and  miserable  state ;  the 
latter  in  the  uneasy  impression  arising  from  the  apprehension  or 
danger.  The  one  is  proportionate  to  the  light  which  is  let  in  upon 
our  real  character  ana  condition ;  the  other  to  the  apparent  avoid- 
ableness  or  unavoiaableness  of  the  danger  to  which  we  feel  our- 
selves exposed.  Hence  though  the  conviction  may  be  strong,  the 
terror  may  be  slight.  These  fears  and  terrors  are  at  best  but  the 
language  of  unbelief,  and  consequently  are  in  their  nature  a  very 
great  sin.  To  believe  that  we  are  in  a  perishing  state  by  nature, 
and  that  we  certainly  shall  perish  if  we  continue  in  that  state,  that 
is  unless  we  repent  and  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  is,  cor- 
dially accept  of  him  as  he  is  offered  in  the  gospel,  and  to  be  suit- 
ably affected  by  these  things  according  to  their  nature,  do  certainly 
belong  to  those  convictions  which  make  up  a  part  of  our  conver- 
sion ;  but  to  disbelieve  or  to  doubt  whether  mercy  is  in  our  offer, 
or  that  we  may  be  saved  on  gospel  terms,  is  unbelief,  and  is  con- 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  193 

ttary  to  that  revelation  which  sets  death  and  life,  the  blessing  and 
the  curse,  before  us  at  the  same  time." 

After  this  exposition  of  his  views,  he  shows  from  scriptural 
examples,  that  "  these  preparatory,  ungracious  convictions  have  no 
foundation  as  to  their  necessity,  in  order  to  conversion ;"  and  con- 
cludes that,  "  the  convictions  which  are  necessary  to  conversion, 
are  in  truth  a  part  of  the  work  itself;  or,  to  speak  more  distinctly, 
are  nothing  else  but  that  very  principle  of  grace  implanted  in  and 
by  conversion,  putting  forth  itself  in  the  exercise  of  conviction  or 
persuasion  of  the  person's  natural,  sinful,  and  miserable  state, 
according  to  the  word,  the  heart  and  conscience  bearing  witness 
tnereunto." 

This  is  a  fair  exhibition  of  Mr.  Thompson's  views  of  this  sub- 
ject, which  were  approved,  it  seems,  by  the  other  leaders  of  his 
party.  This  exhibition  is  here  given,  that  it  may  be  seen  for  what 
kind  of  doctrine  the  good  men  of  that  day  denounced  each  other. 
Mr.  Tennent  appeals  to  this  "  detestable  performance,"  and  to 
"  the  false  and  dangerous  Moravian  doctrine"  which  it  contained, 
in  proof  that  the  author  and  those  who  agreed  with  him,  not  only 
opposed  the  work  of  God,  but  were  themselves  graceless.*  Yet 
these  good  men  did  not  really  differ  in  doctrine.  Mr.  Thompson 
admitted  that  there  were  convictions  resulting  from  the  common 
operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  sometimes  were  and  some- 
times were  not  followed  by  true  conversion.  He  only  maintained 
that  they  were  not  necessary,  and  that  those  which  are  essential 
are  themselves  the  results  of  saving  grace.  Against  this  Mr.  Ten- 
nent had  not  a  word  to  say.  As  he  was  a  believer  in  instantaneous 
conversions,  he  could  not  believe  in  the  absolute  necessity  of  these 
preparatory  convictions ;  nor  could  he  well  maintain  that  any 
exercises,  not  in  themselves  holy,  were  indispensable  as  a  prepara- 
tion for  holiness.  The  only  difference  between  the  parties  was,  that 
the  one  laid  more  stress  upon  this  "  preliminary  law  work"  than 
the  other  did.  Both  admitted  that  it  often  occurred;  and  both 
admitted  that  it  was  not  indispensable. 

*  He  refers  to  it  for  both  purposes ;  compare  Examiner  Examined,  pp.  17 
and  87. 

VOL.  II. — 13 


19-4  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

Another  subject  of  dispute  was,  the  call  to  the  gospel  ministry. 
Mr.  Tennent  in  his  Nottingham  sermon  had  said,  that  "  Natural 
men  have  no  call  of  God  to  the  ministerial  work,  under  the  gospel 
dispensation.  Is  it  not  a  principal  part  of  the  ordinary  call  of 
God  to  the  ministerial  work,  to  aim  at  the  glory  of  God,  and  in 
subordination  thereto,  the  good  of  souls,  as  the  chief  marks  in 
their  undertaking  that  work  ?  And  can  any  natural  man  on  earth 
do  this  ?  No  !  No  !  every  skin  of  them  has  an  evil  eye ;  for  no 
cause  can  produce  effects  above  its  own  power.  Man  may  put  them 
into  the  ministry,  through  unfaithfulness  or  mistake  ;  or  credit  or 
money  may  draw  them,  and  the  devil  may  drive  them,  knowing  by 
long  experience  what  special  service  they  may  be  to  his  kingdom 
in  that  office;  but  God  sends  not  such  hypocritical  varlets."*  This 
and  similar  declarations  were  understood  to  teach,  that  though  a 
man  be  regularly,  after  due  trial  and  examination,  ordained  to  the 
sacred  office ;  yet  if  he  is  unconverted,  he  has  not  the  call  of  God, 
but  only  that  of  man,  to  the  ministry.  Thus  the  matter  is  stated 
by  Mr.  Thompson,  in  the  sermon  above  quoted.  With  regard  to 
this  point,  he  concedes,  1.  That  true  grace  in  the  person  called,  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  faithful  and  acceptable  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  the  ministry.  2.  That  there  is  a  distinction  betw-een  the 
outward  call  of  the  word,  and  the  inward  call  of  the  Spirit,  to 
grace  and  salvation.  But  the  call  of  God  to  the  ministry  is  an 
authoritative  act  by  which  he  authorizes  and  commands  the  person 
called  to  enter  upon  the  sacred  office.  3.  God  is  truly  and  properly 
said  to  do  what  is  done  in  virtue  of  any  order  or  institution  of  his, 
and,  therefore,  4.  That  when  a  person  is  orderly  set  apart  to  this 
work,  by  those  having  authority  from  Christ  for  that  purpose,  he 
is  properly  said  to  be  called  of  God  to  that  work,  whatever  his 
qualifications  may  be.  "  I  entreat  my  readei'S,"  he  adds,  "  that 
they  may  not  misunderstand  me,  as  if  I  would  plead  for  an  unsanc- 
tified  ministry.  God  forbid  that  such  a  profane,  impious  thought 
should  ever  be  harboured  in  my  breast,  much  more  that  I  should 
be  wicked  enough  to  maintain  it  by  arguments.  Undoubtedly  it  is 
tb.3  indispensable   duty  of  every  one  who  aspires  to  this   aacred 

*  Nottingham  Sermon,  p.  5. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  195 

office,  to  pray  and  labour  for  true  sanctifying  grace  and  all  other 
necessary  qualifications,  to  fit  him  for  the  work,  and  to  propose 
single  ends  and  views  to  himself  in  undertaking;  it.  And  it  is  no 
less  the  duty  of  those,  whose  part  it  is  to  call  and  ordain  men  to 
that  work,  to  take  care  to  inquire  into  the  saving  grace,  as  well  as 
the  other  qualifications  in  the  persons  to  be  ordained ;  and  the 
neglect  of  either  is  a  heinous  sin,  and  of  a  dreadful  tendency,  as 
no  doubt  a  graceless  ministry  is  an  awful  plague  and  scourge  to 
any  people."  What  he  contended  for  was,  1.  That  the  qualifica- 
tions for  the  sacred  office,  and  the  call  to  enter  upon  it,  should  not 
be  confounded ;  for  "  if  the  inward  gracious  qualifications  consti- 
tute the  call  of  God,  then  all  who  have  the  qualifications  are  called 
to  the  ministry."  2.  That  the  claim  of  those  who  were  regularly 
ordained  to  be  regarded  as  true  ministers  should  not  be  denied. 

To  all  this  Mr.  Tennent  replied,  that  his  Nottingham  sermon 
was  founded  on  the  assumption,  that  there  "  is  a  two-fold  call  to 
the  ministry,  inward  and  outward.  The  first  consisting  principally 
in,  or  rather  was  evidenced  by,  the  pious  dispositions  and  aims  of 
the  person  ;  and  the  other  in  his  regular  external  separation  to  the 
ministerial  work."*  He  adds,  "When  I  said  pharisee  or  uncon- 
verted ministers  are  no  shepherds,  (no  faithful  ones,,)  in  Christ's 
account,  it  is  plainly  intimated  that  I  owned  them  to  be  ministers, 
true  and  lawful  ones,  in  the  sight  of  the  church,  but  not  faithful 
ones  in  the  account  of  Christ. "f  In  another  place  he  says: 
"  Whether  those  inward  pious  dispositions  be  termed  the  inward 
call  of  God  to  the  gospel  ministry ;  or  only  qualifications  necessary 
or  pre-requisite  in  the  persons  whom  God  calls ;  it  seems  to  be  the 
same  in  substance. "J  He  denies  that  he  confounded  the  outward 
and  inward  call,  or  ever  "  thought  that  any  person  by  reason  of 
his  good  dispositions  and  aims,  had  commission  or  authority  to 
exercise  the  ministerial  office.  "§  He  successfully  vindicates  the 
propriety  of  calling  these  pious  desires  the  evidence  of  an  inward 
call,  by  an  appeal  to  the  usage  of  the  church.  "This,"  he  says, 
"  is  the  opinion  of  the  whole  church  of  Scotland,  as  appears  from 

*  Examiner  Examined,  p.  10.  f  Ibid.  p.  12. 

X  Remarks  on  the  Protest.  \  Examiner  Examined,  p.  12. 


196  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

her  Directory,  which  they  and  we  have  adopted  as  the  standard  of 
our  proceedings  and  sentiments  respecting  the  affairs  of  church 
government."  He  then  quotes  from  the  ordination  service  a  dis- 
tinct recognition  of  the  inward  call.*  He  appeals  also  to  the 
Church  of  England,  which  asks  every  candidate  for  orders :  "  Do 
you  trust  that  you  are  inwardly  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  take 
upon  you  this  office  and  ministration  ?"  There  was,  therefore,  no 
real  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject  between  Mr.  Tennent  and 
his  opponents.  He  erred  in  the  violent  and  sweeping  language  of 
his  sermon,  which  seemed  to  imply  that  an  unconverted  minister  is 
no  minister  at  all ;  and  they  erred  in  restricting  the  word  '  call'  to 
an  authoritative  act  giving  a  right  to  exercise  the  office  of  the 
ministry. 

A  third  subject  of  discussion  was  the  doctrine  of  assurance. 
Mr.  Tennent  complained  that  his  brethren  had  done  great  harm  by 
teaching,  "  that  persons  might  have  grace  and  not  know  it."f  He, 
at  times,  went  to  the  opposite  extreme.  Mr.  Thompson  says,  "  I 
myself  have  heard  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent,  with  great  vehemency, 
assert  to  a  great  congregation  that  every  truly  gracious  person,  or 
true  convert,  is  as  sensible  of  the  grace  of  God  in  himself,  or  the 
love  of  God  to  him,  as  a  man  would  be  of  a  wound  or  stab,  or  of 
the  blowing  of  the  wind,  or  to  that  effect ;  and  he  maintained  the 
same  doctrine,  alleging  some  Scripture  for  his  support,  when  in 
private  I  challenged  him  for  it,  on  the  same  evening."!  The  same 
complaint  is  made  against  the  Brunswick  brethren  in  the  Protest 
and  elsewhere.  This  is  one  of  the  doctrines  examined  in  Mr. 
Thompson's  sermon  quoted  above  ;  with  regard  to  which  he  teaches, 
1.  That  assurance  is  attainable  in  this  life.  2.  That  it  is  the  fault 
of  Christians  that  it  is  not  more  generally  attained.  3.  That  it 
may  be  lost.  He  denies,  however,  that  every  believer  is  assured 
of  his  gracious  state  from  the  moment  that  he  enters  upon  it.  In 
answer  to  the  common  objection,  that  a  man  must  be  conscious  of 
the  exercises  of  his  own  mind,  he  says:  "It  is  one  thing  to  be 
conscious  of  such  and  such  a  thought  in  my  heart,  and  another 

*  Examiner  Examined,  p.  15.  f  Ibid.  p.  19. 

%  Preface  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Nature  of  Conviction,  p.  5. 


THE     UNITED     STATES.  197 

thing  to  be  sure  that  such  a  thought  is  an  exercise  of  grace." 
That  Mr.  Tennent  and  his  friends,  notwithstanding  casual  un- 
guarded statements,  really  held  the  common  doctrine  on  this  sub- 
ject, is  plain  from  his  remarks  on  the  Protest.  He  there  says  : 
"  Assurance  is  attainable  and  loseable ;  some  gracious  souls  attain 
it  in  this  life,  and  some  do  not."  This  his  opponents  owned  "to 
be  right  orthodox,  and  the  substance  of  what  they  had  been  con- 
tending for." 

Such  were  the  doctrinal  matters  in  dispute  between  the  two 
parties.  Well  might  Mr.  Tennent  say,  they  were  in  their  own 
nature  small,  though  greatly  aggravated  by  the  distemper  of  the 
times.  There  is  not  one  of  these  points,  with  regard  to  which  they 
did  not  come  to  a  substantial  agreement,  as  soon  as  an  opportunity 
was  offered  for  a  dispassionate  comparison  of  views. 

If  the  parties  were  thus  agreed  with  respect  to  doctrines,  were 
they  not  widely  separated  in  relation  to  their  views  of  church 
government  ?  There  is  a  very  prevalent,  but  very  erroneous  impres- 
sion in  reference  to  this  point.  The  schism  is  often  represented  as 
the  result  of  a  long-continued  struggle  between  the  presbyterian 
and  congregational  element  in  the  Synod ;  between  the  Scotch  and 
Irish  members  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  New  England  members  on 
the  other.  The  preceding  narrative  shows  that  there  is  not  the 
least  foundation  for  this  representation.  It  shows  that  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  authority  of  the  Synod,  in  relation  to  the  two  acts  which 
were  the  matter  in  dispute,  was  confined,  with  one  doubtful  excep- 
tion, to  the  Scotch  and  Irish  members.  The  ejected  members,  with 
the  same  exception,  belonged  to  the  same  class.  The  protesting  or 
Brunswick  party,  as  it  was  called,  was,  therefore,  as  completely  a 
Scotch  and  Irish  party  as  it  well  could  be.  The  narrative  further 
shows  that  the  New  England  portion  of  the  Synod  took  part  with 
the  majority  on  all  the  ecclesiastical  matters  in  debate,  until  the 
anti-presbyterial  ejectment  of  the  New  Brunswick  brethren ;  and 
that  those  of  them  who  subsequently  withdrew,  left  the  Synod 
not  on  account  of  the  matters  in  dispute  between  the  contending 
parties,  but  because  of  the  violent  and  unconstitutional  manner  in 
which  that  dispute  was  ended.     And  finally,  it  shows  that,  so  far 


198  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

from  the  New  England  brethren  being  driven  off,  their  secession 
was  regarded  with  great  regret.  The  Synod  said  it  was  a  thing  they 
could  not  hinder,  though  contrary  both  to  their  "judgment  and 
inclination." 

If,  then,  the  members  who  were  violently  cast  out  were  Congre- 
gationalists,  it  was  not  through  New  England  influence.  It  was 
Irish  Congregationalism,  if  Congregationalism  at  all,  which  caused 
the  schism.  Still,  the  most  interesting  question  is,  Were  these 
ejected  brethren  really  anti-presbyterian  in  their  principles  ?  It 
has  been  seen  that  this  was  one  of  the  prominent  charges  against 
them  ;  and  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  charge  had  a  very  plau- 
sible foundation.  Those  brethren  themselves  found  it  very  difficult 
to  reconcile  some  parts  of  their  Apology  with  the  principles  they 
professed.  To  all  appearance  they  allowed  to  presbyteries  and 
synods  nothing  beyond  advisory  powers,  even  in  judicial  cases. 
This  character  of  the  Apology  is  no  doubt,  however,  as  has  already 
been  remarked,  to  be  referred  to  that  habit  of  exaggerated  state- 
ment so  characteristic  of  Mr.  Tennent,  and  which  involved  him  in 
so  many  inconsistencies.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
in  contradiction  with  other  declarations  of  its  authors,  and  with 
their  uniform  practice.  These  are  more  trustworthy  sources  of 
evidence  of  the  opinions  of  these  gentlemen  than  any  controversial 
paper  written  in  the  midst  of  an  ardent  struggle,  and  to  justify  an 
extreme  proceding.  Certain  it  is,  the  New  Brunswick  brethren 
considered  the  charge  of  anti-presbyterianism  as  unfounded  and 
injurious.  They  asserted  their  faithful  adherence  to  the  West- 
minster Directory.  They  affirmed  that  they  were  as  strict  Presby- 
terians as  their  opponents.  They  gave  such  an  explanation  of  their 
Apology  as  to  remove  all  objections  to  it ;  and  their  uniform  prac- 
tice, first  as  a  Presbytery,  and  afterwards  as  a  Synod,  was,  in  fact, 
as  thoroughly  conformed  to  Presbyterian  rules,  as  that  of  the  old 
Synod  during  any  period  of  its  history.*  If  all  these  points  are 
clearly  established,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  parties  were  as 
thoroughly  agreed  in  their  principles  of  church  government,  as  in 

*  The  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  this  latter  statement  will  be  found  in 
the  following  chapter,  containing  the  history  of  the  church  during  the  schism. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  199 

their  doctrinal  opinions,  and  the  schism  will  be  assigned  to  its  true 
cause,  viz.  the  disorder  and  alienation  consequent  on  the  excitement 
produced  by  the  revival. 

A  very  few  extracts  from  the  writings  of  the  leading  men,  on 
either  side,  will  suffice  to  prove  the  correctness  of  the  representa- 
tion just  given,  and  to  show  the  agreement  of  the  two  parties.  In 
a  passage  just  quoted  from  Mr.  Tennent,  we  heard  him  say,  when 
speaking  of  the  Directory,  that,  they  and  we,  his  opponents  and 
his  friends,  had  adopted  it,  "  as  the  standard  of  our  proceedings 
and  sentiments  respecting  the  affairs  of  church  government."  Was 
such  a  declaration  ever  made  by  the  Independents  in  Great  Britain, 
or  by  the  Congregationalists  in  New  England  ?  Was-  it  ever  made 
by  any  honest  man  who  was  not  a  sincere  Presbyterian  ? 

A  more  authoritative  profession  is  to  be  found  in  the  Declaration 
of  the  united  Presbyteries  of  New  Brunswick  and  New  Castler 
already  referred  to.  In  order  to  vindicate  themselves  from  the 
charge  of  anti-presbyterianism,  those  presbyteries  give  a  somewhat 
extended  summary  of  the  universally  recognized  principles  of  Pres- 
byterianism,  and  conclude  thus :  "In  a  word,  we  heartily  agree 
with  the  plan  of  government  laid  down  by  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly in  the  Directory  for  church  government,  as  that  which  is  ap- 
pointed by  Jesus  Christ,  and  contained  in  his  word  ;  and  so  we  dis- 
own and  reject  as  unscriptural,  all  other  forms  and  models  of 
church  government  whatsoever."  They  further  declare,  that  they 
"  heartily  approve  of  the  directions  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
in  their  Directory  for  public  worship,  as  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God ;  only  we  would  not  be  understood  to  mean  as  if  every  par- 
ticular direction  and  advice  was  of  necessary  obligation  upon  us. 
For  instance,  that  we  must  always  begin  public  worship  with 
prayer ;  much  le.-s  that  we  can  now  pray  for  the  same  afflicted 
queen  of  Bohemia,  therein  mentioned,  and  such-like  circumstantial 
things,  which  no  understanding  man  can  judge  to  be  necessary,  or 
of  constant  obligation. 

"  We  likewise  agree  to  the  directions  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  their  Directory  for  family  worship, 
excepting  we  see  not  why  persons  of  quality  should,  on  that  ac- 


200  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

count,  be   exempted  from  performing  the  worship  of  God  them 
selves,  in  their  own  families,  more  than  others ;  and  the  meeting 
of  divers  families  therein  disapproved  of,  is  not  to  be  understood 
of  such  private  societies  as  may  meet  statedly,  at  proper  times,  for 
reading  and  prayer,  and  mutual  edifying  conference. 

"  This  is  a  summary  account  of  our  faith  and  principles,  and 
agreeable  to  the  same  we  desire  and  design,  through  divine  grace, 
ever  to  conduct  ourselves,  that  we  may  be  faithful  as  servants  in 
all  God's  house."*  Stronger  professions  of  Presbyterianism  were 
never  made,  or  desired  by  the  opposite  party. 

The  reader  will  now  not  be  surprised  to  hear  Mr.  Tennent  assert 
that  the  parties  did  not  differ  in  their  ecclesiastical  principles. 
"  What  order  and  government  were  opposed,"  he  asks,  "  in  the 
late  time  of  contention  among  us  ?  Was  it  the  necessity  of  order 
and  government  in  the  church  of  Christ  in  general  ?  No.  Was  it 
the  nature  of  the  government  which  the  Scripture  expresses  ?  No. 
Was  it  the  plan  of  government  which  is  expressed  in  our  Directory 
agreeable  to  the  Scriptures  ?  No.  What  was  then  the  core  of  the 
controversy  ?  Why  some  circumstantials  in  government ;  in  other 
words,  some  rules  or  acts  of  discipline  formed  by  the  majority,  and 
reckoned  prudential  and  expedient  by  them,  but  on  the  contrary, 
prejudicial  and  sinful  by  the  minor  party,  "f 

The  agreement  between  the  two  parties  will  be  more  obvious,  if 
we  state  distinctly  the  points  on  which  they  ultimately  came  to  a 
full  understanding.  They  both  denied  to  the  church  all  legislative 
power  in  matters  of  religion ;  that  is,  all  right  to  make  laws  to 
bind  the  conscience.  This  power,  it  may  be  remembered,  was 
unanimously  disclaimed  by  the  Synod  in  1729,  in  the  adopting  act. 
It  is  formally  disclaimed  in  our  present  constitution,  and  it  has 
ever  been  disclaimed  by  all  parties  in  the  church.  Mr.  Thompson, 
in  his  Government  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  written  in  answer  to 
the  Apology  of  the  New  Brunswick  brethren,  says :  "  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  hath  invested  his  church  with  authority  to  make 
orders,  acts,  or  diatactic  rules  for  the  regulating  of  circumstances 
of  ecclesiastical  matters,  which  are  not,  nor  possibly  could  be  aU 

*  Detector  Detected,  pp.  127,  128.  f  Irenicum,  pp.  98,  99 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  201 

condescended  upon  in  Scripture,  for  preventing  disorders  and  con- 
fusion, only  these  rules  must  conform  to  and  bear  a  subordination 
to  the  general  rules  of  the  word.  This  authority  of  the  church  is 
only  declarative,  subordinate,  and  executive  ;  but  not  legislative, 
supreme,  or  dictating.  The  meaning  whereof  is  this.  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  head  and  king  of  his  church  ;  his  church  is  his 
kingdom ;  his  word  contains  a  complete  system  of  doctrines  and 
laws  for  his  church  to  believe  and  obey  ;  but  he  hath  also  appointed 
officers  and  rulers  in  his  kingdom,  who  are  authorized  both  to  teach 
and  to  rule  according  to  these  laws ;  and  accordingly  they  have 
authority  to  explain  these  doctrines,  and  agree  about  the  meaning 
of  Scripture  as  to  doctrinals ;  and,  by  consequence,  to  compose 
creeds  or  confessions  of  faith.  They  have  also  authority  to  interpret 
or  explain  the  rules  and  precepts  of  the  word,  and  to  apply  these 
laws  or  rules  to  particular  cases."*  Again:  "These  rules,  acts,  or 
orders  of  the  church  cannot,  with  any  propriety  of  speech,  be 
termed  religious  laws,  because  they  contain  no  new  matter  but  what 
is  supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  divine  law,  or  general  rule  of 
the  word  applied  to  such  and  such  cases. "f  Again :  "  We  pretend 
to  no  authority  to  make  laws  or  rules,  the  matter  and  penalty  of 
which  are  not  comprehended  in  the  word,  though  not  expressed 
therein.  As,  for  instance,  when  the  Westminster  Assembly  gave 
directions  to  inquire  into  the  character  and  qualifications  of  candi- 
dates for  the  ministry,  they  judged  that  the  rules  in  the  epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus  did  require  them  to  form  and  observe  those 
very  directions,  which  they  then  and  there  laid  down  for  that  very 
purpose,  viz. :  to  require  certificates,  and  to  inquire  into  their  skill 
in  the  several  parts  of  learning,  &c."J  Again  :  "  We  aver  that 
the  power  and  authority,  by  which  such  acts  or  rules  are  made,  is 
only  a  ministerial,  subordinate,  declarative  power  or  authority,  to 
explain  and  apply  the  rules  or  laws  already  made  by  Christ,  and 
contained  in  his  word  ....  which  is  no  legislative  power  at  all. 
The  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  contained  in  our 
Westminster  Directory,  is  made  up  of  such  rules. "§  ''We  are 
obliged,"  he  says,  "to  remind  our  readers  that  we  claim  no  legis- 

*  Government,  &c,  p.  60.       f  Ibid.  p.  62.       %  Ibid.  p.  68.       \  Ibid.  p.  75. 


202  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCII 

lative  power,  but  only  a  ministerial  and  executive  power,  viz. :  a 
power  or  authority  as  officers  in  Christ's  church  to  govern  it,  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  which  he  hath  already  given,  and  consequently 
to  explain  and  apply  those  laws  to  their  particular  cases,  whether 
by  making  rules,  or  judging  facts."*  And  to  the  same  effect: 
"  We  own  and  plead  that  every  true  church  hath  authority  to  make 
rules  about  prudentials  and  expedients ;  but  we  deny  that  this 
power  is  a  power  of  legislation,  and  say  that  it  is  only  a  declara- 
rative  and  executive  power. "f 

From  these  extracts  it  is  plain  what  was  disclaimed,  and  what 
was  affirmed  to  belong  to  church  judicatories.  All  power  to  make 
new  laws  on  religious  matters  was  disclaimed,  but  the  authority  to 
make  rules  to  carry  into  effect  the  general  principles  contained  in 
the  word  of  God,  was  asserted.  To  both  these  points  the  other 
party  fully  assented.  Mr.  Blair,  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Apo- 
logy, wrote  a  vindication  of  his  brethren  from  the  charge  of  anti- 
presbyterianism,  contained  in  Mr.  Thompson's  work.  From  this 
vindication  it  appears,  that  the  power  to  which  the  Brunswick 
gentlemen  intended  to  object,  was  precisely  that  which  Mr.  Thomp- 
son disclaimed;  and  that  the  power  which  he  asserted  to  be- 
long to  church  judicatories,  they  readily  conceded  to  them.  "  I 
proceed,"  says  Mr.  Blair,  "to  show  the  weakness  of  his  charge, 
by  giving  a  just  view  of  those  passages  of  the  Apology,  which  he 
grounds  it  upon  ;  and  to  this  purpose  it  will  be  necessary  to  see 
and  consider  what  that  strain  of  authority  in  church  judicatories 
is,  which  the  brethren  who  presented  that  Apology  do  reject  and 
reason  against."  This  he  describes  as  "a  proper  legislative  or 
law-making  authority ;  not  only  an  authority  to  execute  the  laws 
of  Christ,  but  properly  to  make  laws  of  their  own,  in  addition  to 
the  laws  of  Christ ;  which  might  also  sometimes  happen  to  be  con- 
trary to  his  laws,  as  it  was  with  some  of  the  constitutions  of  the 
Jews." X     This  is  exactly  the  authority  which  Mr.  Thompson  dis 

*  Government,  &c,  p.  97.  f  Ibid.  p.  101. 

X  Vindication  of  the  brethren  who  were  unjustly  and  illegally  cast  out  of 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  by  a  number  of  the  members,  from  maintaining 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  203 

claimed.  On  the  other  hand,  he  concedes  every  thing  when  he 
says :  "  We  heartily  agree  with  our  Confession  of  Faith,  that  '  it 
belongs  unto  Synods  and  councils  to  set  down  rules  for  the  better 
ordering  the  public  worship  of  God  and  the  government  of  the 
church ;  to  receive  complaints  in  case  of  mal-administration,  and 
authoritatively  determine  the  same ;  which  decrees  and  determina- 
tions, if  consonant  to  the  word  of  God,  are  to  be  received  with 
reverence  and  submission,  not  only  for  their  agreement  with  the 
word,  but  also  for  the  power  whereby  they  are  made,  as  being  an 
ordinance  of  God  appointed  thereunto  in  his  word.'  "  It  is  per- 
fectly evident  this  was  all  that  was  ever  demanded  on  the  other 
side,  or  by  any  class  of  Presbyterians.  And  "all  this,"  says  Mr. 
Blair,  "  we  freely  allow  ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  Apology,  so 
far  as  I  can  discern,  that  can  be  produced,  according  to  the  fair 
rules  of  interpretation,  contrary  thereto.  For,  observe  again,  the 
point  denied  is  this,  viz. :  That  church  judicatories  have  a  lawful 
power  of  oppressing  the  consciences  of  their  members,  by  impos- 
ing any  thing  upon  them  upon  pain  of  censure  and  non-communion, 
which  they  judge  sinful,  and  cannot  in  conscience  comply  with ; 
when  the  majority,  in  the  meantime,  are  not  in  conscience  bound 
by  the  authority  of  God  declaring  or  ordaining  that  very  thing  in 
his  word.  Such  a  power  as  this,  is,  I  think,  properly  a  legislative 
power  in  religious  matters."  *  It  is  plain  then  that  Mr.  Blair  and 
Mr.  Thompson  thus  far  perfectly  agreed.  They  both  disclaimed 
what  they  called  a  legislative  power  in  religious  matters,  that  is,  a 
power  to  make  laws  to  bind  the  conscience  ;  and  they  both  asserted 
the  power  to  decide  authoritatively  in  judicial  cases,  and  to  set 
down  rules  for  the  government  of  the  church. 

The  parties  agreed  also  as  to  the  limits  of  this  latter  power. 
They  both  held  that  the  decisions  and  rules  of  church  judicatories 
were  bindiDg  on  dissentient  members,  provided  those  determinations 

principles  of  anarchy  in  the  church,  and  denying  the  due  scriptural  authority 
of  church  judicatories ;  against  the  charges  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Thompson 
in  his  piece  entitled,  The  Government  of  the  Church  of  Christ ;  by  Samuel 
Blair.— Works,  p.  209. 
*  Works,  p.  213. 


204  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

were  not  regarded  as  sinful.  And  further,  they  agreed,  that  when 
the  conscience  of  any  member  forbad  compliance  with  such  deter- 
minations, his  duty  was  peaceably  to  withdraw,  and  not  trample  on 
the  rules  of  the  body.*  Mr.  Thompson  says  on  this  subject,  "No 
member  of  a  judicatory  is  abridged  or  deprived  of  his  privilege 
hereby.  For  first,  he  hath  the  privilege  as  a  member  to  debate 
and  reason  ;  again,  he  is  at  liberty  to  give  his  vote  or  keep  it;  and 
thirdly,  he  is  at  liberty  to  submit  and  conform  to  the  determination 
of  the  judicatory  by  vote,  or  not.  Where  then,  I  beseech,  is  the 
abridgment  ?  And  as  for  penalty,  there  is  no  new  penalty  inflict- 
ed, but  what  is  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  differing  judg- 
ments among  the  members  of  a  judicatory,  viz. :  Submission  to  the 
judgment  of  the  majority,  or  separation  ;  which,  with  its  following 
inconveniences  is  mutual,  and  affects  both  parties  in  proportion."  f 
"  The  minority  of  a  church  judicatory  do  virtually  promise  to  be 
determined  by  the  suffrage  of  the  majority,  every  time  they  con- 
sent to  let  the  matter  in  debate  go  to  a  vote  ;  and,  therefore,  after- 
wards to  refuse  subjection  to  such  determination  is  to  forfeit  their 
promise.  They  exercise  liberty  of  conscience  and  private  judg- 
ment in  voting ;  and  they  have  still  liberty  of  conscience  and  pri- 
vate judgment  of  discretion  to  determine  themselves  as  to  their 
obedience ;  i.  e.  if  they  apprehend,  or  come  to  be  persuaded  that 
what  is  concluded  is  sinful,  they  are  at  liberty  to  refuse  obedience, 
and  that  without  the  least  hazard  of  any  penalty  or  censure,  be- 
sides what  is  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  the  difference  of 
judgment  in  such  cases,  and  of  the  authority  which  they  them- 
selves have  approved  by  putting  themselves  under  the  government 
of  it."  |  The  authors  of  the  Protest  take  the  same  ground:  "We 
utterly  renounce,"  say  they,  "  all  claim  of  power  to  make  any 
scriptureless  canons  ;  and  claim  a  bare  ministerial  authority,  to  set 
down  rules  and  directions  for  the  ordering  of  public  worship  of 
God,  and  the  government  of  his  church  agreeable  to  the  thirty-first 
article,  part  third,  of  our  Confession  of  Faith If  we  can- 

*  It  is  true  the  New  Brunswick  brethren  did  not  act  on  this  principle,  but 
tliey  came  to  acknowledge  its  justice. 

j  Government,  &c.  p.  90.  %  Ibid.  p.  93 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  205 

not  agree  without  voting,  the  majority  have  a  casting  vote  in  all 
our  determinations,  as  is  usual  in  all  judicatories  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical, so  that  the  minority  or  dissenting  voters,  in  rules  of  com- 
mon concern,  must  either  comply,  or  forbear  to  counteract,  or 
separate."  * 

Mr.  Tennent  teaches  the  same  doctrine.  "  No  doubt  a  smaller 
number,"  says  he,  "ought  freely  to  submit  to  the  conclusions  of 
the  majority,  in  matters  of  government,  which  they,  the  majority, 
judge  essential  to  the  well-being  of  the  church.  For  without  this 
there  could  be  no  government  at  all.  Without  this  the  minor 
party  would  have  power  to  impose  upon  the  major,  in  things  which 
they  reckon  of  the  last  consequence  to  the  good  of  the  society ; 
which  is  absurd.  It  is  true  the  major  party  may  be  mistaken  as 
well  as  the  minor,  and  consequently  abuse  their  power,  for  which 
there  is  no  help  in  the  present  imperfect  state  of  things,  but  humble 
remonstrance  by  reason  and  argument.  Yet  considered  as  a  so- 
ciety, the  majority  have  a  right  to  judge  for  themselves,  (upon  the 
plan  of  private  judgment,)  what  they  reckon  essential  to  their  con- 
stitution, or  to  the  well-being  of  the  church  under  their  care,  and 
consequently  to  exclude  from  their  society  such  as  do  not  comply 
therewith.  Moreover  in  matters  which  are  reckoned  circumstan- 
tial by  the  majority,  the  minor  party  ought,  for  peace'  sake,  to 
comply,  if  they  be  not  conscience-bound  in  the  matter ;  but  if  so, 
they  cannot ;  and  whether  forbearance  should  not  be  exercised  to- 
wards them  in  this  case,  as  well  as  in  other  parallel  cases,  I  leave 
to  others  to  determine."  f  "There  are  two  general  cases,"  says 
Mr.  Blair,  "  wherein  we  freely  grant  church  judicatories  must  re- 
quire and  insist  upon  submission  and  obedience  from  all  their  mem- 
bers, whether  they  assent  or  dissent,  whether  they  be  negatives  or 
approbatives,  or  non-liquets  in  the  making  of  the  acts  or  rules,  on 
pain  of  such  censure  as  may  appear  from  Scripture  to  be  due  to 
their  disobedience,  according  to  the  various  instances  of  it,  or  cases 
wherein  it  may  be :  First,  when  the  judicature  does  judge,  that 
that  very  particular  which  they  determine,  appoint,  or  forbid,  is 
itself   particularly   declared,   appointed,    or  forbidden  by   God  in 

*  Refutation  of  Mr.  Tennent's  Remarks,  p.  55.  f  Irenieum,  p.  99 


206  PRESBYTERIAN    CIIURCII 

Holy  Scripture,  whether  the  point  be  determined  in  Scripture  in 
so  many  express  words,  or  by  plain  consequence,  it  is  che  same 
thing.  The  other  general  case,  wherein  obedience  and  submission 
are  necessary  to  be  given  to  church  judicatories  and  required  by 
them  is,  when  in  matters  of  human  prudence  and  expediency  they 
can  submit  without  conscience  of  sin  in  so  doing.  When  the  ma- 
jority of  a  judicature  judge  a  particular  thing  or  rule  to  be  a  good 
prudential  expedient  in  present  circumstances,  or  to  answer  the 
design  of  some  general  direction  or  injunction  of  God's  word, 
though  the  minority  or  lesser  number  judge  it  not  so,  yet  they  are 
in  duty  and  conscience  bound  to  submit  and  obey,  unless  they  judge 
the  thing  or  rule  to  be  contrary  to  God's  word,  and  so,  that  it  is 
sinful  for  them  to  obey.'"  *  Further  than  this  no  Presbyterian 
ever  went.  Finally,  when  these  brethren  came  to  unite  with  others 
in  the  formation  of  a  new  Synod,  it  was  laid  down  as  a  fundamen- 
tal principle :  "  That  in  matters  of  discipline  and  those  things 
which  relate  to  the  peace  and  good  order  of  our  churches,  they 
shall  be  determined  according  to  the  major  vote  of  ministers  and 
elders,  with  which  vote  every  member  shall  actively  concur  or 
passively  acquiesce.  But  if  any  member  cannot  in  conscience 
agree  to  the  determination  of  the  majority,  and  the  Synod  think 
themselves  obliged  to  insist  upon  it  as  essentially  necessary  to  the 
well-being  of  our  churches,  in  such  case,  such  dissenting  member 
promises  peaceably  to  withdraw  from  the  body,  without  endeavour- 
ing to  raise  any  dispute  or  contention  upon  the  debated  point,  or 
any  unjust  alienation  from  them."f  In  all  the  protracted  negoti- 
ations between  the  two  Synods,  this  article  was  acquiesced  in  by 
both  parties,  and  was  adopted  in  1758,  when  the  union  actually 
took  place. 

Notwithstanding,  therefore,  the  ardent  debates  and  mutual  crim- 
inations on  this  subject,  it  appears  the  two  parties  were  of  one 
mind.  They  were  agreed  in  disclaiming  all  legislative  power  in 
religious  matters.  They  were  agreed  in  the  right  of  Synods  to  set 
down  rules  for  the  government  of  the  church.     They  were  agreed 

*  Vindication,  &c.  p.  211  and  212. 

f  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  2. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  207 

in  the  binding  authority  of  these  rules  even  over  dissentients,  ex- 
cept when  such  dissentients  believed  them  to  be  sinful.  They  were 
agreed  that  when  a  member  could  not  obey  a  given  rule  with  a 
good  conscience,  it  was  his  duty  peaceably  to  withdraw.  Finally, 
they  were  agreed  that  when  a  Synod  saw  that  the  minority  were 
opposed  to  any  measure,  not  in  judgment  only,  but  in  conscience, 
they  ought  not  to  insist  upon  it,  and  thus  necessitate  a  schism,  un- 
less they  believed  the  measure  to  be  essential  tq  the  well-being  of 
the  churches.  These  principles  are  all  so  plain  and  so  reasonable, 
that  we  need  not  wonder  they  commanded  the  unanimous  consent 
of  both  parties,  or  that  they  have  remained  the  unquestioned  prin- 
ciples of  our  church  from  that  day  to  this.  If  in  the  exasperation 
of  another  conflict,  when  no  truth  is  clearly  seen,  and  no  duty  pro- 
perly appreciated,  they  have  again  been  called  in  question  by  heated 
partisans,  they  will  resume  the  sway  which  belongs  to  truth  and 
reason  when  the  excitement  has  died  away. 

It  appears  from  this  history  that  the  great  schism  was  not  the 
result  of  conflicting  views,  either  as  to  doctrine  or  church  govern- 
ment. It  was  the  result  of  alienation  of  feeling  produced  by  the 
controversies  relating  to  the  revival.  In  these  controversies  the 
New  Brunswick  brethren  were  certainly  the  aggressors.  In  their 
unrestrained  zeal,  they  denounced  brethren,  whose  Christian  char 
acter  they  had  no  right  to  question.  They  disregarded  the  usual 
rules  of  ministerial  intercourse,  and  avowed  the  principle  that  in 
extraordinary  times  and  circumstances  such  rules  ought  to  be  sus- 
pended. Acting  upon  this  principle,  they  divided  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  congregations  within  the  sphere  of  their  operations,  and 
by  appealing  to  the  people,  succeeded  in  overwhelming  their  breth- 
ren with  popular  obloquy.  Excited  by  a  sense  of  injury,  and 
alarmed  by  the  disorders  consequent  on  these  new  methods,  the 
opposite  party  had  recourse  to  violent  measures  for  redress,  which 
removed  none  of  the  evils  under  which  they  suffered,  and  involved 
them  in  a  controversy  with  a  large  class  of  their  brethren,  with 
whom  they  had  hitherto  acted  in  concert.  These  facts  our  fathers 
have  left  on  record  for  the  instruction  of  their  children ;  to  teach 
them  that  in  times  of  excitement  the  rules  of  order,  instead  of 


208  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH. 

being  suspended,  are  of  more  importance  than  ever  to  the  well- 
being  of  the  church  ;  that  no  pretence  of  zeal  can  authorize  the 
violation  of  the  rules  of  charity  and  justice  ;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  that  it  is  better  to  suffer  wrong  than  to  have  recourse  to 
illegal  methods  of  redress ;  that  violence  is  no  proper  remedy  for 
disorder,  and  that  adherence  to  the  constitution  is  not  only  the 
most  Christian,  but  also  the  most  effectual  means  of  resistance 
against  the  disturbers  of  the  peace  and  order  of  the  church. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

HISTORY   OF   THE    CHURCH   DURING    THE    SCHISM, 
1741-58. 

Stood  of  Philadelphia.  Accessions  to  the  Synod. — Missionary  labours  of 
the  Synod. — Its  efforts  in  behalf  of  education. — Establishment  of  the  widows' 
fund. — The  form  of  government. — Presbyterial  acts  performed  by  the  Synod. 
—  Its  supervisory  power.  —  Decision  of  casuistical  questions. — Addresses 
to  the  churches  in  reference  to  the  low  state  of  religion,  and  to  public  ca- 
lamities. 

Svnod  of  New  York.  Articles  of  agreement  on  which  the  Synod  was  founded. 
Accessions  to  the  Synod. — Its  missionary  labours.  —  Its  efforts  in  behalf  of 
education. — Its  standard  of  doctrine. — Its  form  of  government,  illustrated 
by  its  acts  of  review  and  control ;  the  formation  of  new  Presbyteries ;  the 
decision  of  judicial  questions ;  the  strict  Presbyterianism  of  its  subordinate 
Presbyteries. — The  Synod  conformed  to  the  Scottish  model,  in  appointing 
annually  a  commission,  in  investing  committees  with  full  synodical  power, 
and  in  acting  as  a  Presbytery. — History  of  the  negotiations  for  an  union  of 
the  two  Synods. — The  plan  of  union  ultimately  adopted  in  1758. 

The  number  of  ministers  connected  with  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
before  the  schism,  was  from  forty  to  forty-five.  Nine  were  excluded 
in  1741,  and  eleven  or  twelve  withdrew  in  1745,  when  the  Synod  of 
New  York  was  formed,  leaving  in  connection  with  the  old  Synod  from 
twenty  to  twenty-three.  During  the  seventeen  years  that  the  sepa- 
ration lasted,  the  number  of  ministers  in  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia 
remained  nearly  stationary.  This  was  the  result  of  various  causes. 
The  portion  of  the  country  which  fell  within  the  bounds  of  that  Synod 
was  comparatively  new,  and  settled  by  a  heterogeneous  population, 
Irish,  Scotch,  German,  Welsh,  and  English.  These  people  to  a  great 
extent  were  poor,  and  much  less  cultivated  than  the  original  set- 
tlers of  New  England.  They  were  also  widely  scattered  and  mixed 
with  other  denominations,  which  rendered  the  formation  of  churches, 
VOL.  II.  — 14  (209) 


210  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCII 

and  the  support  of  pastors,  exceedingly  difficult.  The  number  of 
young  men  qualified  for  the  ministry  furnished  by  such  a  popula- 
tion, was  of  course  small,  and  the  supply  of  preachers  from  abroad 
was  tardy  and  precarious. 

During  this  period  also,  the  colonies,  especially  Pennsylvania 
and  Virginia,  were  greatly  harassed  and  injured  by  the  French  and 
Indian  wars.  In  a  multitude  of  cases,  settlements,  instead  of  in- 
creasing, were  entirely  broken  up,  and  the  people  murdered  or 
scattered.  This  disturbed  state  of  the  country  was  of  course  very 
unfavourable  to  the  formation  of  new  congregations,  and  to  the 
increase  of  those  already  established.  Missionaries  sent  by  the 
Synod  of  New  York  to  Virginia,  were  more  than  once  entirely 
prevented  from  fulfilling  their  appointments,  by  the  dangerous 
condition  of  the  frontier  settlements.* 

Another  cause  of  the  slow  increase  of  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, was  the  decided  superiority  of  the  Synod  of  New  York. 
This  superiority  was  not  merely  as  to  numbers,  but  as  to  zeal, 
weight  of  character,  and  facility  of  obtaining  a  supply  of  minis- 
ters. To  this  Synod,  therefore,  was  attracted  a  large  proportion 
of  those  young  men,  who,  from  their  geographical  position,  most 
naturally  belonged  to  the  other.  New  England  too,  even  at  that 
day,  had  begun  to  be  the  hive  of  ministers.  The  Presbyteries  of 
New  York  and  New  Brunswick  lying  contiguous  to  the  sources  of 
supply,  naturally  received  the  ministers  who  entered  our  church 
from  the  eastern  provinces. 

The  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  however,  laboured  with  no  little 
zeal  and  fidelity  to  cope  with  the  difficulties  with  which  they  were 
surrounded,  and  to  cultivate  successfully  the  field  which  God  had 
committed  to  their  care.  The  following  ordinations  and  receptions 
of  new  members  were  reported  to  the  Synod  during  the  period  now 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  101.  "  The  difficulties  and  dan- 
gers of  the  times,"  it  is  said,  "  rendered  it  in  a  great  degree  impracticable  for 
Messrs.  Spencer  and  Brainard  to  answer  the  end  of  their  appointment  to  the 
southward,  and  for  that  reason  said  appointments  were  not  fulfilled.  There 
were  like  reasons  for  Mr.  Clark  not  fulfilling  his  appointment  to  the  southern 
provinces."     These  appointments  were  made  in  1755. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  211 

under  review;  in  1742,  Messrs.  Guild  and  Samuel  EtTans,  by  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  and  Mr.  Alexander  McDowell,  by  the 
Presbytery  of  Donegal ;  in  1744,  Timothy  Griffiths  and  John 
Steele,  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  who  also  reported  the 
reception  of  Mr.  James  Scougall,  an  ordained  minister  from  Scot- 
land, and  his  settlement  at  Snowhill,  Maryland.  In  1747,  the 
Presbytery  of  Donegal  reported  the  ordination  of  David  Thorn, 
and  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  that  of  John  Dick,  John  Ham- 
ilton, and  Hector  Alison.  In  1748,  the  Rev.  David  Brown,  from 
Scotland,  was  received  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle.  In  1749, 
the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  reported  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Tate ; 
and  in  1752,  that  of  Mr.  Samson  Smith ;  and  in  1754,  that  of 
Robert  McMurdie ;  the  same  year  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia 
reported  the  ordination  of  John  Kinkead.  In  1757,  the  Rev.  John 
Miller  was  received  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle.  This  gen- 
tleman, the  father  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  was  born 
in  Boston,  whither  his  parents  had  removed  from  Scotland.  Mr. 
John  Miller  was  settled  at  Dover,  in  the  State  of  Delaware,  and 
continued  the  faithful  pastor  of  that  church  until  his  death  in  1791. 
The  same  year  the  Rev.  Alexander  Miller  was  received  by  the 
Synod.  Besides  these,  we  find  the  names  of  William  McKennan, 
Matthew  Wilson,  William  Donaldson,  and  John  Alison,  on  the 
minutes  as  ministers  or  preachers.  It  thus  appears  that  about 
twenty-two  ministers  were  added  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia 
during  the  continuance  of  the  schism.  During  the  same  period 
the  death  or  removal  of  ten  ministers  is  recorded.*  It  is  not  pro- 
bable that  the  minutes  give  a  full  account  either  of  the  accessions 
or  losses,  particularly  of  the  latter,  as  the  number  upon  record  in 
1758,  was  not  much  larger  than  it  was  in  1745 

The  attention  of  the  Synod  was  early  turned,  not  only  to  the 
wants  of  the  people  within  their  immediate  bounds,  but  to  those 

.  *  The  deaths  reported  are  those  of  Thomas  Evans  and  James  Martin,  in 
1743,  of  Mr.  Andrews  in  1747,  of  John  Dick  in  1748,  of  David  Evans  and 
Samuel  Cavin  in  1751,  of  John  Thompson  and  Hugh  Conn  in  1753,  of  Robert 
Cathcart  and  Timothy  Griffiths  in  1754,  and  of  Mr.  Elmer  in  1755.  The  re- 
turn of  Mr.  David  Brown  to  Scotland,  is  mentioned  in  the  minutes  for  1749. 


212  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

also  of  the  emigrants  who  were  rapidly  extending  themselves 
through  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  In  1742,  a  supplication 
was  received  "  from  some  of  the  back  inhabitants  of  Virginia," 
begging  the  Synod  to  write  to  the  General  Assembly  in  Scotland, 
or  to  its  commission,  requesting  that  a  minister  or  probationer 
might  be  sent  over  to  them.*  Such  a  letter  was  accordingly  writ- 
ten. The  following  year  the  Synod  wrote  again  to  the  Assembly, 
"  to  lay  before  them  the  low  and  melancholy  condition  of  this  in- 
fant church,  both  for  want  of  probationers  to  supply  our  numerous 
vacancies,  and  also  for  want  of  suitable  encouragement  for  minis- 
ters in  new  settlements,  and  to  intreat  them  both  to  send  ministers 
and  probationers,  and  to  allow  them  some  small  support  out  of  their 
fund  for  some  years,  in  new  places  ;  and  that  they  be  pleased  to 
enable  us  in  some  measure  or  by  some  method  to  erect  a  seminary 
or  school  for  educating  young  men  for  these  ends  among  our- 
selves."! 

In  1744,  "  a  representation  was  laid  before  Synod  from  many 
people  in  North  Carolina,  showing  their  desolate  condition,  and 
petitioning  that  we  would  appoint  one  of  our  number  to  correspond 
with  them. "J  The  same  year,  "the  Rev.  Mr.  Dorsius,  pastor  of 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  Buck's  County,  laid  a  letter  before 
Synod,  from  the  deputies  of  North  and  South  Holland,  wherein 
they  desire  of  the  Synod  an  account  of  the  high  and  low  Dutch 
churches  in  this  Province,  and  also  of  the  churches  belonging  to 
the  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  and  whether  the  Dutch 
churches  may  be  joined  in  communion  with  said  Synod,  or  if  this 
may  not  be,  that  they  would  form  themselves  into  a  regular  body 
and  government  among  themselves.  In  pursuance  of  which  letter, 
the  Synod  agreed  that  letters  be  written  in  the  name  of  the  Synod 
to  the  deputies  of  those  Synods  in  Latin,  and  to  the  Scotch  minis- 
ters in  Rotterdam,  giving  them  an  account  of  the  churches  here, 
and  declaring  our  willingness  to  join  with  the  Calvinistic  Dutch 
churches  here,  to  assist  each  other  as  far  as  possible  in  promoting 
the  common  interests  of  religion,  and  signifying  the  present  great 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  ii.  p.  79.  f  Ibid.  p.  85. 

X  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  4. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  213 

want  of  ministers  among  the  high  and  low  Dutch,  with  the  desire 
that  they  may  help  in  educating  men  for  the  ministry.  And  the 
Synod  ordered  that  Messrs.  Andrews,  Cross,  Evans,  and  the  Mode- 
rator, (McHenry,)  write  the  said  letters."* 

That  there  were  already  congregations  formed  and  furnished 
with  ministers  in  the  frontier  settlements  in  Virginia,  appears  from 
the  following  minute  made  in  1747  :  "  Upon  considering  the  dis- 
tance of  the  brethren  in  the  back  parts  of  Virginia,  we  think  it 
necessary  that  we  should  know  the  state  of  the  churches  which  are 
under  our  care,  though  at  a  distance  from  us ;  and,  therefore,  it  is 
ordered  that  at  least  one  of  those  brethren  shall  every  year  attend 
us,  that  we  may  have  the  pleasure  of  knowing  the  state  of  Christ's 
kingdom  among  them,  and  that  we  may  keep  synodical  communion 
in  reality,  and  not  in  name  only.  And  ordered  that  Messrs. 
McHenry  and  Sanchey  write  them  a  letter,  acquainting  them  with 
the  mind  of  the  Synod  in  said  affair,  "f  These  congregations  were 
formed  principally  under  the  ministrations  of  the  members  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Donegal.  As  early  as  1738,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Anderson,  a 
member  of  that  Presbytery,  was  sent  to  the  settlements  in  the  vicinity 
of  Staunton.  The  following  year,  Mr.  John  Thompson  supplied  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Winchester  and  Staunton  ;  and  the  same  year 
Mr.  John  Craig  received  calls  from  two  settlements  near  Staunton, 
which  he  accepted,  having  been  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Donegal  for  that  purpose.  These  congregations  he  called  Augusta 
Church  and  Tinkling  Spring.  He  continued  to  labour  in  these 
two  congregations,  (which  are  two  of  the  oldest  congregations  in 
Virginia,)  for  about  fourteen  years,  when  he  took  his  dismission 
from  Tinkling  Spring,  and  continued  the  remainder  of  his  days 
pastor  of  Augusta  Church  alone ;  "  which  church  still  continues  to 
be  numerous  and  respectable,  distinguished  in  general  for  their 
orthodoxy  and  good  order,  and  enjoying  from  time  to  time  some 
spiritual  refreshings. "|  About  the  year  1744,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Black, 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  was  settled  at  Rockfish."§ 

*  Minutes,  p.  5.  t  Ibid.  p.  21. 

X  See  MS.  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Virginia  and  part  of  North 
Carolina,  prepared  by  the  Lexington  Presbytery  in  1799.  §  Ibid. 


214  P  R  E  S  B  Y  T  i:  II  I  A  N     CHURCH 

In  1748,  the  Synod,  in  consequence  of  an  application  for  sup 
plies,  "  appointed  that  one  minister  should  be  sent  in  the  fall,  and 
another  in  the  spring,  to  preach  in  the  back  parts  of  Virginia,  each 
eight  weeks,  and  that  such  members  be  exempt,  until  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod  do  the  same."*  The  following  year  it  was 
ordered,  that  Mr.  Tate  go  out  eight  weeks  in  the  fall,  and  Mr. 
McHenry  as  many  in  the  spring. "f  In  1750,  this  duty  was 
assigned  to  Mr.  Griffith  and  Mr.  Samuel  Thompson  ;  and  in  1751, 
to  Mr.  Hector  Alison  and  Mr.  Samson  Smith. J  In  1752,  it  was 
ordered,  that  Mr.  McKennan  supply  the  congregations  of  North 
and  South  Mountain,  Timber  Grove,  North  River,  and  Cedar  Creek, 
and  John  Hinton's,  until  October,  chiefly,  and  other  vacancies  as 
often  as  he  can ;  and  that  Mr.  Kinkead  shall  supply  the  same 
from  the  middle  of  November  till  the  first  of  March. "§  In  1753. 
supplications  were  again  received  from  Virginia  and  North  Caro- 
lina, and  Mr.  McMurdie  was  sent  to  preach  in  the  vacant  congre- 
gations for  ten  weeks  or  longer,  if  needful ;  and  Mr.  Donaldson  for 
a  similar  term.  These  missionaries  were  urged  to  pay  special  atten- 
tion to  the  congregations  in  North  Carolina,  between  the  Yadkin 
and  Catawba  rivers.  || 

In  1755,  the  Synod  sent  Mr.  Donaldson  to  the  same  settlements 
for  three  months  in  the  fall,  Mr.  Matthew  Wilson  for  three  months 
in  the  winter,  and  Mr.  McKennan  for  three  months  in  the  spring.^ 
In  1756,  it  was  ordered  that  Mr.  John  Alison  supply  the  same 
"  vacancies  next  fall  and  winter.  And  it  is  recommended  to  him, 
and  to  all  such  who  may  be  sent  by  us  to  supply  those  distant 
parts,  to  study  in  all  their  public  ministrations  and  private  commu- 
nications, to  promote  peace  and  unity  among  the  societies,  and  to 
avoid  whatever  may  tend  to  foment  divisions  and  party  spirit,  and 
to  treat  every  minister  from  the  Synod  of  New  York,  of  like  prin- 

*  Minutes,  p.  24.  f  Ibid.  p.  26.  J  Ibid.  p.  30. 

\  Ibid.  p.  41.  Timber  Grove  is  Timber  Ridge.  North  River  runs  near  Lex- 
ington, in  which  the  church  is  now  situated.  There  is  still  a  church  on  the 
old  site  called  New  Monmouth.  North  Mountain  is  six  miles  west  of  Staun- 
ton.    Cedar  Creek  ten  or  twelve  miles  south-west  from  Winchester. 

||  Ibid.  p.  44.  \  Ibid.  p.  49. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  215 

eipbs  and  peaceful  temper,  in  a  brotherly  manner,  as  we  desire  to 
promote  true  religion  and  not  party  designs.  And  the  Synod 
resolved  to  send  a  copy  of  these  instructions  to  the  brethren  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York,  hoping  that  they  will  recommend  a  like  con- 
duct to  any  they  send  thither.  Ordered,  that  each  of  our  supplies  to 
those  distant  parts,  carry  a  copy  of  this  minute  with  them."* 

In  1757,  it  was  ordered,  "that  Mr.  Miller  supply  the  following 
settlements  in  order  in  the  fall,  each  one  Sabbath  day,  viz. : 
Cather's  settlement,  Osborne's,  Morrison's,  Jersey's  on  Yadkin  ; 
Buffler's  and  Baker's  settlement.  And  that  Mr.  Craig  supply  the 
same  settlements,  each  one  Sabbath  day  in  the  spring ;  together 
with  Brown's,  North  and  South  Mountain,  and  Calf-pasture  settle- 
ments, in  Virginia ;  and  that  they  preach  to  lesser  congregations 
on  week  days,  as  often  as  they  can."f 

These  notices  give  but  an  imperfect  idea  of  the  missionary 
labours  of  the  members  of  this  Synod.  Each  Presbytery  was  a 
missionary  society,  and  most  of  the  missions  to  vacant  congrega- 
tions or  destitute  settlements  were  made  under  their  direction,  and 
therefore  do  not  appear  upon  the  minutes  of  the  Synod. 

Next  to  the  religious  instruction  of  their  own  people,  and  the 
supply  of  the  new  settlements,  the  duty  of  providing  some  adequate 
means  for  the  education  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  seems  to  have 
pressed  most  heavily  upon  the  members  of  the  Synod.  From  an 
early  period,  probably  as  early  as  1719  or  1720,  the  Rev.  William 
Tennent,  Sen.,  had  erected  a  school  at  Neshaminy,  long  known  as 
the  Log  College,  where  some  of  the  most  distinguished  and  useful 
ministers  of  that  generation  received  their  education.  This  was  a 
private  institution,  and  had  no  immediate  connection  with  the 
Synod.  In  1739,  Mr.  John  Thompson  introduced  an  overture  into 
the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  proposing  the  establishment  of  a  school 
under  the  care  of  the  Synod.  This  overture  was  the  same  year 
referred  to  the  Synod,  and  "unanimously  approved;"  and  Messrs. 
Pemberton,  Dickinson,  Cross,  and  Anderson,  were  nominated,  "  two 
of  whom,  if  they  can  be  prevailed  upon,  to  be  sent  home  to  Europe 
to  prosecute  this  affair,  with  proper  directions.     And  in  order  to 

*  Minutes,  p.  55.  f  Ibid.  p.  64. 


216  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

this,  it  was  ordered,  that  the  commission  of  Synod,  with  correspon- 
dents from  every  presbytery,  meet  at  Philadelphia,  the  third  Wed- 
nesday of  August  next,  and  if  it  be  necessary  that  Mr.  Pemberton 
go  to  Boston,  pursuant  to  this  design,  it  is  ordered,  that  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  supply  his  pulpit  during  his  absence."* 
When  the  commission  met  in  accordance  with  this  appointment,  it 
was  resolved  that  application  should  be  made  to  every  presbytery 
for  their  concurrence  and  assistance,  and  that  a  letter  should  be 
written  to  the  General  Assembly  in  Scotland,  soliciting  their  co- 
operation. In  consequence,  however,  of  the  small  number  of 
members  in  attendance,  it  was  thought  best  to  refer  the  matter  to 
the  whole  Synod ;  and  the  commission  accordingly  resolved  to  call 
an  extra  meeting  of  the  Synod  on  the  last  Wednesday  of  Septem- 
ber, enjoining  "  on  the  members  present  to  inform  their  respective 
presbyteries  of  the  appointment,  and  that  the  moderator  send 
letters  to  the  Presbyteries  of  New  Brunswick  and  New  York,  order- 
ing their  attendance  at  the  time  appointed."  It  was  further  ordered, 
"  that  a  letter  be  remitted  to  Dr.  Colman,  to  be  communicated  to 
our  brethren  of  Boston,  earnestly  desiring  their  concurrence  and 
assistance  in  this  affair,  "f  It  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  fol- 
lowing year,  1740,  that  in  consequence  of  "  war  breaking  out  be- 
tween England  and  Spain,  the  calling  of  the  Synod  was  omitted, 
and  the  whole  affair  laid  aside  for  the  time."  A  letter  from  Dr. 
Colman,  in  reply  to  the  one  written  to  him  by  the  commission,  was 
read  before  the  Synod,  wherein,  in  the  name  of  the  associated 
brethren  of  Boston,  "  he  assures  the  Synod  of  their  readiness  to 
concur  with  the  Synod  in  their  laudable  proposal  of  erecting  a 
school  or  seminary  of  learning  in  these  parts. "J 

Nothing  further  was  done  in  this  business  until  1744.  From  the 
minutes  for  that  year,  it  appears  that  "  a  committee  was  held  at 
the  Great  Valley,  November  16,  1743,  by  a  private  agreement 
between  the  Presbyteries  of  Philadelphia,  New  Castle,  and  Done- 
gal, the  minutes  of  which  meeting  were  laid  before  the  Synod, 
showing  that  the  said  committee  considered  the  necessity  of  speedy 
endeavours  to  educate  youth  for  supplying  our  vacancies  ;  but  as 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  07.  f  Ibid.  p.  68.  J  Ibid.  p.  73. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  217 

the  proper  method  cannot  be  so  well  compassed  without  the  Synod, 
they  refer  the  consideration  of  the  affair  to  that  reverend  body ; 
but  agree,  in  the  mean  time,  a  school  be  opened  for  the  education 
of  youth.  And  this  Synod,  it  is  added,  now  approve  of  that  de- 
sign, and  take  the  said  school  under  their  care,  and  agree  upon  the 
following  plan  for  carrying  on  the  design  : 

"  First,  there  shall  be  a  school  kept  open,  where  all  persons  who 
please  may  send  their  children,  and  have  them  taught  gratis,  in  the 
languages,  philosophy,  and  divinity. 

"  Second,  in  order  to  carry  on  this  design,  it  is  agreed  that  every 
congregation  under  our  care  be  applied  to  for  yearly  contributions, 
more  or  less,  as  they  can  afford,  and  as  God  may  incline  them  to 
contribute,  until  Providence  open  a  door  for  our  supporting  the 
school  some  other  way. 

"  Third,  if  any  thing  can  be  spared,  besides  what  may  support 
a  master  and  tutor,  it  be  applied  by  the  trustees  for  buying  books 
and  other  necessaries  for  the  said  school,  and  the  benefit  of  it,  as 
the  trustees  shall  see  proper.  And  Mr.  Alison  is  chosen  master  of 
the  said  school,  and  has  the  privilege  of  choosing  an  usher  under 
him  to  assist  him ;  and  he,  Mr.  Alison,  is  exempted  from  all  public 
business,  save  only  attending  church  judicatories,  and  what  con- 
cerns his  particular  pastoral  charge.  And  the  Synod  agree  to  allow 
Mr.  Alison  ,£"20  per  annum,  and  the  usher  ,£15."*  The  same  day 
the  Synod  appointed  a  board  of  trustees  for  the  school,  three  of 
whom  were  to  visit  the  school  every  quarter.  "  These  trustees,"  it 
is  added,  "  are  to  inspect  into  the  master's  diligence  in,  and  method 
of  teaching ;  consider  and  direct  what  authors  are  chiefly  to  be 
read  in  the  several  branches  of  learning ;  to  examine  the  scholars 
from  time  to  time  as  to  their  proficiency ;  to  apply  the  money  pro- 
cured from  our  people  as  ordered  above  ;  and,  in  sum,  order  all 
affairs  relating  to  said  school,  as  they  shall  see  expedient,  and  be 
accountable  to  the  Synod,  making  report  of  their  proceedings  and 
the  state  of  the  school  yearly." 

This  it  must  be  admited  was  a  very  liberal  plan.  A  school  was 
thus  established  for  the  gratuitous  instruction  of  the  youth  of  all 

*  Minutes,  vol.  iii.  pp.  4,  5. 


218  PRESBYTERIAN    C  II  UKCH 

denominations,  and  sustained  by  the  efforts  of  one  of  the  poorest ; 
and  one  of  the  most  accomplished  scholars  at  that  time  in  the 
country,  was  placed  at  the  head  of  it.  The  only  record  in  the 
minutes  for  1745,  relating  to  the  school,  is  the  notice  of  the  report 
of  the  trustees,  and  an  order  to  those  ministers  who  had  not  taken 
up  a  collection  for  its  support,  to  attend  to  that  duty.  It  appears 
that,  by  the  order  of  the  commission,  Messrs.  Andrews  and  Cross 
had  written  a  letter  to  President  Clap  and  the  trustees  of  Yale 
College,  in  relation  to  this  enterprise,  as  notice  is  taken  of  his 
reply.  When  President  Clap's  letter  was  presented  to  the  Synod 
in  1746,  an  answer  was  prepared,  which  is  inserted  on  the  records 
at  length. 

It  may  be  inferred  from  this  answer,  that  the  commission  had 
written  to  make  some  arrangements  for  the  admission  of  the  stu- 
dents from  the  synodical  school  into  Yale  College,  as  the  president 
called  for  information  as  to  the  plan  of  the  school  and  state  of 
the  Synod.  This  information  the  answer  in  question  purports  to 
give.  It  states  that  the  Synod  had,  some  years  before,  endeavoured 
to  establish  a  school,  but  were  prevented  by  the  troubles  of  the 
time,  especially  by  the  war  with  Spain ;  that  in  the  mean  time,  in 
order  to  secure  a  learned  ministry,  they  had  agreed  that  those  who 
had  not  a  diploma  from  some  college  should  obtain  a  certificate  of 
competent  scholarship  from  the  Synod,  before  being  taken  on  trials 
by  any  Presbytery.  It  then  briefly  refers  to  the  opposition  made 
to  this  agreement,  and  to  the  controversies  arising  out  of  Mr.  "White- 
field's  preaching,  and  the  subsequent  schism  in  the  Synod.  The 
letter  then  gives  an  account  of  the  school,  and  adds,  that  the 
Synod  had  agreed  "  that  after  the  scholars  had  passed  through  the 
course  of  studies  assigned  to  them,  they  shall  be  publicly  examined 
by  the  trustees  and  such  ministers  as  the  Synod  shall  see  fit  to 
appoint,  and  if  approved,  shall  receive  testimonials  of  their  appro- 
bation, and  without  such  testimonials  none  of  the  Presbyteries 
under  the  care  of  the  Synod  shall  improve  any  of  the  scholars  in 
the  ministry."  The  writers  further  express  their  hope  of  obtaining 
assistance  from  England  and  Ireland,  as  soon  as  the  difficulties 
whi  m  then  existed  allowed  of  their  making  the  necessary  applica- 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  219 

tion.  They  profess  their  purpose  to  make  the  course  of  instruc- 
tion in  their  school  correspond  as  nearly  as  possible  with  that  pur- 
sued in  the  British  colleges.  They  readily  agreed  that  their 
scholars,  in  going  to  Yale,  should  be  examined  by  the  president  and 
fellows,  be  required  to  bring  recommendations,  and  that  they  should 
enjoy  no  privileges  inconsistent  with  the  good  order  of  the  college. 
It  is  not  easy  to  understand  the  object  of  this  letter,  unless  it  be 
assumed  that  the  statutes  of  Yale  College  required  a  certain  num- 
ber of  years'  residence  before  graduation,  and  that  the  Synod 
wished  their  students  to  be  allowed  to  enter  the  higher  classes, 
when  found  prepared,  in  order  to  avoid  the  expense  of  a  protracted 
absence  from  their  own  homes.  In  the  minutes  for  the  year  1747, 
there  is  a  notice  of  another  letter  from  President  Clap,  and  of  a 
reply  on  the  part  of  the  Synod,  but  the  contents  of  neither  are 
given. 

The  Synod  continued  to  watch  over  the  school  with  sedulous 
attention,  as  there  is  almost  every  year  some  record  relating  to  it. 
In  1749,  it  was  found  necessary  to  modify  the  plan  of  gratuitous 
instruction.  Mr.  Alison's  salary  was  increased  to  thirty  pounds, 
and  he  was  allowed  to  receive  the  usual  tuition  fee  from  all  stu- 
dents whom  the  trustees  did  not  exempt  from  that  charge.*  In 
1751-2,  Mr.  Alison  removed  to  Philadelphia  to  take  charge  of  the 
academy  in  that  city,  and  when  it  was  erected  into  a  college  he  was 
appointed  the  vice-provost.  Mr.  Alexander  McDowell  was  ap- 
pointed his  successor  in  the  mastership  of  the  synodical  school. 
The  organization  of  the  college  in  Philadelphia,  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  Mr.  Alison,  seem  in  a  measure  to  have  removed  the  neces- 
sity for  a  higher  collegiate  institution  under  the  immediate  care  of 
the  Synod.  That  college,  though  principally  under  the  control  of 
Episcopalians,  was  accessible  to  all  denominations,  and  a  large  por- 
tion of  its  officers  and  trustees  have  ever  been  Presbyterians. 

In  1754,  Mr.  Matthew  Wilson  was  appointed  Mr.  McDowell's 
assistant,  and  teacher  of  languages  in  the  school,  Mr.  McDowell 
"  from  a  sense  of  the  public  good,  continuing  to  teach  logic,  mathe- 
matics, and  natural  and  moral  philosophy."!     In  1755,  a  collec- 

*  Minutes,  p.  26.  t  Ibid.  p.  46. 


220  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

tion  of  books  was  received  from  Dublin,  which  were  sent  "  for  the 
benefit  of  public  schools,  the  use  of  students,  and  the  encourage- 
ment of  learning  in  this  infant  church,  to  be  disposed  of  by  the 
Synod  in  the  best  manner  to  answer  these  good  ends."  It  was 
then  agreed  that  these  books  should  "be  the  foundation  of  a  public 
library  under  the  care  of  the  Synod."  The  books  proper  for  the 
school  were  to  be  the  property  of  the  master,  he  giving  security 
for  their  safe  keeping  and  return  ;  the  others  were  committed  to 
the  care  of  the  trustees  of  the  fund  for  ministers'  widows,  who 
were  to  choose  a  librarian  to  take  charge  of  the  library  for  the  use 
of  members  of  the  Synod,  and  for  the  benefit  of  students  of  divin- 
ity in  the  college  of  Philadelphia.*  The  same  year  an  application 
was  made  to  the  trustees  of  the  German  schools  for  assistance  in 
the  support  of  the  synodical  school ;  the  Synod  engaging  "  to  teach 
some  Dutch  children  the  English  tongue,  and  three  or  four  boys 
Latin  and  Greek,  if  they  offer  themselves ;  and  Mr.  Samson  Smith 
was  directed  to  open  the  school  at  Chesnut  Level  so  soon  as  this 
favour  was  received."  f  These  German  schools  were  under  the 
patronage  of  a  general  board  in  London,  and  of  a  subordinate 
board  in  Philadelphia.  It  was  to  the  latter  that  the  application  of 
the  Synod  was,  in  the  first  instance,  directed.  This  application 
was  the  more  reasonable,  as  the  Synod  had  for  eleven  years  sus- 
tained the  school  by  their  own  exertions,  and  offered  its  advantages 
gratuitously,  to  the  youth  of  all  denominations.  The  request  for 
assistance,  therefore,  was  granted  without  much  hesitation,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  following  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  board, 
communicated  to  the  Synod  in  answer  to  their  petition.  "June 
14,  1755 ;  met  at  Mr.  Allen's  house  near  Germantown  the  follow- 
ing trustees,  viz. :  Messrs.  Allen,  Peters,  Franklin,  and  Smith. 
And  taking  into  their  consideration  the  aforesaid  petition  of  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  were  under  some  difficulty  how  to  act  concern- 
ing it.  On  the  one  hand  they  thought  that  to  grant  the  petition  in 
favour  of  an  English  Synod  might  give  offence  to  the  Germans, 
who  generally  consider  this  charity  as  intended  for  their  own  par- 
ticular benefit.     The  trustees  were  also  of  opinion,  that  it  did  not 

*  Minutes,  p.  51.  t  Ibid.  p.  65. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  221 

exactly  fall  under  the  great  design  of  promoting  the  English  tongue 
among  the  Germans.  But  they  considered  on  the  other  hand,  the 
pleas  urged  by  the  petitioners.  They  knew  it  to  be  a  truth,  that 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  at  a  time  when  ignorance,  even  among 
the  ministry,  was  like  to  overrun  the  whole  province,  had  begun, 
and  Avith  much  difficulty,  long  supported  a  public  school  under  Mr. 
Francis  Alison  ;  and  that  many  able  ministers,  and  some  of  them 
Dutch,  had  been  educated  in  the  said  school.  The  trustees  were 
also  of  opinion  that  it  was  no  small  argument  in  favour  of  the  pe- 
titioners, that  the  mother  church  of  Scotland  had  contributed  so 
largely  to  this  useful  charity,  and  that  if  any  future  application  to 
said  church  should  be  necessary,  the  interest  and  recommendation 
of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  might  be  useful  in  that  respect,  as 
well  as  in  countenancing  the  several  schools  in  their  present  infant 
state,  and  educating,  according  to  their  proposal,  some  young  men 
for  the  Dutch  ministry  gratis.  In  consideration  of  all  which  it 
was  resolved  to  grant  twenty-five  pounds  currency  for  one  year  to 
assist  the  said  Synod  to  support  their  school,  on  the  following  terms, 
viz. :  1.  That  it  shall  be  under  the  same  common  government  with 
the  other  free  schools,  and  be  subject  to  the  visitation  of  the  trus- 
tees general  or  their  deputies,  appointed  upon  the  recommendation 
of  the  Synod.  2.  That  the  master  shall  teach  four  Dutch  or  Eng- 
lish scholars  gratis,  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  trustees  gene- 
ral, to  be  prepared  for  the  ministry,  and  ten  poor  Dutch  children 
in  the  English  tongue  gratis,  if  so  many  offer.  3.  That  the  deputy 
trustees,  together  with  the  master  and  any  of  the  clergy,  visit  the 
school  at  least  once  a  quarter,  and  send  down  a  statement  thereof, 
to  be  transmitted  by  the  general  trustees  to  the  honourable  society. 
Agreed,  that  this  case  be  transmitted  to  the  honourable  society  to 
obtain  their  directions  thereupon."  * 

The  Synod  acceded  to  these  terms  and  appointed  deputy  trustees 
to  visit  the  school  every  quarter.  When  this  matter  came  before 
the  society  in  London,  they  increased  the  annual  contribution  to 
the  Synod's  school  from  twenty-five  pounds  currency  to  thirty 
pounds  sterling. f     It  was  thus  that  the  Synod  laboured  diligently 

*  Minutes,  p.  66.  t  Ibid.  p.  71. 


222  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  successfully  in  promoting  the  cause  of  education.  At  the 
synodic.il  school  under  Mr.  Alison  and  Mr.  McDowell,  some  of  the 
most  distinguished  of  the  ministers  of  the  next  generation  were 
prepared  for  their  work.  This  school  gave  rise  to  the  Newark 
Academy,  which  has  since  been  chartered  as  a  college. 

The  connection  between  these  two  institutions  is  fully  set  forth 
in  the  charter  granted  to  the  Newark  Academy  in  1769,  by  Thomas 
and  Richard  Penn.  "  Whereas  the  Rev.  Messrs.  John  Thompson, 
Adam  Boyd,  Robert  Cross,  Francis  Alison,  Alexander  McDowell, 
and  some  others,  about  twenty  years  since,  erected  a  public  school 
in  the  province  of  Pennsylvania  for  the  instruction  of  youth  in  the 
learned  languages,  mathematics,  and  other  branches  of  useful  lite- 
rature, and  to  qualify  them  for  admission  into  colleges  and  univer- 
sities ;  which  school  they  supported  with  much  care  and  expense, 
to  the  great  advantage  and  benefit  of  the  public :  And  whereas, 
the  said  school,  so  as  aforesaid,  originally  in  the  province  of  Penn- 
sylvania, hath  been  removed  and  is  now  kept  in  the  town  of  New- 
ark, in  the  county  of  New  Castle;  and  whereas,  &c." 

In  one  of  the  preceding  extracts,  mention  is  made  of  the  trus- 
tees of  the  fund  for  ministers'  widows.  As  the  institution  here 
referred  to  still  exists,  and  is  one  in  which  many  of  our  clergy  are 
interested,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  introduce  a  brief  account  of 
its  origin.  In  1754,  "  a  proposal  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Alison 
for  laying  some  plan  for  the  support  of  ministers'  widows,"  and  a 
committee  was  appointed  for  that  purpose,  who  made  a  report  to 
the  Synod,  when  it  was  agreed,  "  in  order  to  complete  the  plan, 
and  to  carry  it  into  full  execution,  that  each  Presbytery  should 
choose  a  minister  to  represent  them,  and  send  by  him  their  several 
quotas  to  the  fund  ;  and  this  representation  when  met,  shall  put 
the  stock  into  the  hands  of  appointed  trustees,  and  fix  the  proper 
regulation  of  it."*  The  plan  thus  formed  was  reported  to  the 
Synod  the  following  year  and  finally  adopted.  It  provided  that 
each  subscriber  might  pay  two  or  three  pounds  annually ;  that  all 
future  members  of  the  Synod,  or  candidates  for  the  ministry,  might 
join  the  association  ;  that  the  subscription  of  any  member  might 

*  Minutes,  pp.  4G,  47. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  223 

be  changed  from  two  to  three  pounds,  provided  he  made  up  the  dif- 
ference from  the  beginning ;  that  the  annuity  payable  to  the 
widows  or  children  of  deceased  members,  should  be  five  pounds,  or 
seven  pounds  ten  shillings,  according  as  the  subscription  had  been 
two  or  three  pounds  ;  that  should  a  member  die  before  he  had  made 
five  annual  payments,  one  half  of  the  annuity  due  to  his  represent- 
atives should  be  deducted  until  these  deductions,  together  with  the 
payments  made,  amounted  to  the  sum  of  five  annual  subscriptions; 
that  the  annuity  should  be  payable  to  the  widow  for  life,  to  the 
children  for  twelve  years ;  that  nothing  beyond  the  annuities  was 
to  be  paid,  until  the  capital  amounted  to  eight  hundred  pounds  for 
every  twenty  members :  after  that  the  profits  might  be  divided 
among  the  annuitants.*  The  following  year  application  was  made 
for  a  charter,  which  was  ultimately  obtained  and  has  been  the 
means  of  perpetuating  an  institution  which  has  been  the  source  of 
incalculable  benefits  to  many  widows  and  orphans. 

As  the  principal  object  of  this  history  is  to  exhibit  the  constitu- 
tion of  our  church  as  to  doctrine  and  order,  it  would  here  be  in 
place  to  state  whatever  might  throw  any  light  on  either  of  these 
points.  As  far  as  doctrine,  however,  is  concerned,  there  was  no- 
thing in  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  during  the  schism 
of  any  particular  interest.  There  was  no  controversy  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  no  acts  of  discipline  for  erroneous  opinions,  and  no  new 
measures  adopted  with  a  design  to  uphold  the  standards  of  the 
church.  The  only  exception  to  this  remark  is,  a  resolution  adopted 
immediately  after  the  schism  to  the  following  effect,  viz. :  "  That 
every  member  of  this  Synod,  whether  minister  or  elder,  does  sin- 
cerely and  heartily  receive,  own,  acknowledge,  or  subscribe  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Cate- 
chisms, as  the  confession  of  his  faith,  and  the  Directory,  as  far  as 
circumstances  will  allow  and  admit  in  this  infant  church,  for  the 

*  The  original  members  of  this  association  were  Francis  Alison,  Adam 
Boyd,  Francis  McHenry,  Alexander  McDowell,  John  Steel,  John  Kinkead, 
William  McKennan,  John  Elder,  Samson  Smith,  Richard  Sanchey,  Robert 
McMurdie,  Joseph  Tate,  Hector  Alison,  Matthew  Wilson,  William  Donaldson, 
and  George  Gillespie. 


224  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCII 

rule  of  church  order.  Ordered,  that  every  session  do  oblige  their 
elders  to  do  the  same  at  their  admission.  This  was  readily  ap- 
proved, nemine  contradicente."  *  Hitherto  the  adoption  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  had  been  required  only  of  ministers.  It  was 
now  required  of  elders,  and  that  with  evident  propriety.  They 
are  entitled,  as  members  of  Presbytery,  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the 
doctrinal  knowledge  of  candidates  for  ordination,  and  on  the  ortho- 
doxy of  ministers.  This  regulation,  therefore,  still  continues  a  part 
of  the  constitution  of  the  church. 

As  it  regards  matters  of  government,  the  Westminster  Directory 
continued  to  be  the  general  standard.  The  Sessions  governed  the 
congregations,  subject  to  the  review  and  control  of  the  Presbyte- 
ries ;  the  Presbyteries  governed  their  own  members,  and  received 
appeals  and  references  from  the  Sessions,  subject  to  the  review  and 
control  of  the  Synod ;  and  the  Synod  received  appeals  and  refer- 
ences from  the  Presbyteries,  and  took  care  that  the  constitution 
was  everywhere  observed.  Agreeably,  however,  to  the  Scottish 
and  French  principle,  that  a  Synod  is  a  larger  Presbytery,  and 
may  properly  perform  all  Presbyterial  acts,  when  occasion  calls  for 
it,  we  find  the  Synod  during  this  period  as  well  as  before  the 
schism,  frequently  acting  more  or  less  distinctly  in  a  Presbyterial 
capacity.  Thus  in  1741,  the  name  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Stevenson 
was  struck  from  the  roll,  or  he  was  disowned  as  a  member,  without 
the  intervention  of  a  Presbytery,  because,  as  the  Synod  say,  he  had 
"  from  time  to  time,  for  years  past,  neglected  attending  on  our 
judicatures,  also  had  omitted  his  ministry  without  giving  us  any 
reason  for  his  said  conduct."  f  This  suspension,  however,  was 
only  until  he  should  appear  before  Synod,  "  and  give  an  account 
of  his  proceedings."  In  1749,  we  find  Mr.  Cross  requesting  sup- 
plies from  the  Synod  for  his  congregation,  "  until  it  please  God  to 
restore  his  health."  Supplies  were  accordingly  appointed  for  sev- 
eral Sabbaths,  and  Mr.  Cross  :md  his  congregation  allowed  "  dis 
cretionary  power  to  invite  any  other  of  the  brethren  until  the  com 
mission  met  in  the  fall. "J     In  1754,  he  was  again  obliged  to  seek 

*  Minutes,  vol.  ii.  p.  75.  f  Ibid.  p.  74.  J  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  26. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  225 

assistance,  and  it  was  "  ordered  that  Mr.  Cross  or  Mr.  Alison  have 
allowance  to  write  to  any  minister,  to  come  and  preach  two  Sab- 
baths at  any  time  during  Mr.  Cross's  sickness."  In  1751,  the 
case  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Evans  was  referred  to  the  Synod  for 
advice,  but  they  took  it  up  and  issued  it  by  declaring  "  that  Mr. 
Evans  having  acted  disorderly  in  dissolving  the  pastoral  relation 
between  himself  and  his  people,  having  travelled  to  England  again 
and  again,  without  any  certificates  by  way  of  recommendation  to 
the  churches  in  that  part  of  the  world,  and  having  in  other  things 
acted,  from  time  to  time,  in  a  manner  unsuitable  to  his  character 
as  a  minister,  we  disown  him  as  a  member  of  this  Synod  until  he 
give  us  satisfaction  by  a  return  to  his  duty,  and  amend  his  life  and 
conduct."  * 

In  1753,  a  minister  from  Ireland,  who  had  been  censured  by  the 
Presbytery  in  his  own  country,  applied  directly  to  the  Synod  to  be 
allowed  to  preach  in  their  congregations.  This  application  was 
refused. f  Three  years  afterwards,  however,  an  application  was 
made  by  a  particular  congregation  for  his  services,  to  which  the 
Synod  replied,  "  that  they  found  it  necessary  to  wait  until  they  re- 
ceived an  answer  from  the  Synod  in  Ireland ;  but  resolved,  that  as 
he  had  offered  satisfaction  to  that  Synod  by  our  mediation,  and 
had  behaved  himself  so  as  to  be  well  approved  as  a  minister  among 
us,  if  either  the  Synod  of  Ireland  send  us  no  answer,  or  inform  us 
that  they  have  accepted  his  submission,  we  do  order  Messrs.  Black 
and  Craig  to  receive  him  a  member,  and  install  him  ;  provided  they 
find  his  conduct  in  that  part  of  Christ's  vineyard  such  as  becomes 
a  gospel  minister."|  This  appointment  for  some  reason  was  not 
fulfilled,  as  the  following  year  "  a  supplication  was  received  from 
Cook's  Creek,  and  Peeked  Mountain,  requesting  that  we  would 
receive  Mr.  Alexander  Miller  as  a  member,  and  that  at  his  instal- 
lation he  be  appointed  as  their  pastor  in  the  Lord.  The  Synod,  it 
is  added,  unanimously  agreed  to  receive  him  as  a  member,  and  or- 
dered that.  Mr.  Craig  install  him  sometime  before  the  first  of  Au- 

*  Minutes,  vol.  iii.  p.  30.  f  Ibid.  p.  44.  J  Ibid.  p.  59. 

VOL.  II. — 15 


226  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

gust  next."*  All  this  was  done  without  the  intervention  of  a  Tres- 
bytery. 

The  way  in  which  the  Synod  most  frequently  interfered  in  the 
immediate  government  of  the  churches,  was  by  the  appointment  of 
correspondents  to  sit  with  a  Presbyter}',  either  with  or  without 
their  previous  consent.  Thus,  in  1752,  a  petition,  apparently  from 
a  church  member,  was  received  and  referred  "  to  the  Presbytery 
of  Donegal,  together  with  Messrs.  McDowell,  Cathcart,  Griffiths, 
and  Steel,  as  correspondents  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castfe, 
to  meet  at  Octarara  the  second  Tuesday  in  August ;  and  it  was 
ordered,  that  Mr.  Boyd's  session  give  notice  to  all  parties  con- 
cerned."f 

In  1753,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  "  applied  to  the  Synod, 
that  whereas  Mr.  Hector  Alison  had  laid  certain  grievances  before 
them,  and  sued  for  a  dismission  from  his  pastoral  charge  ;  and  as 
the  affair  appeared  to  be  of  great  importance,  and  required  a  final 
decision  at  their  next  meeting,  they  humbly  requested  that  the 
Synod  would  join  some  of  the  other  members  out  of  the  other 
presbyteries  with  them,  to  judge  of  that  affair,  and  that  said  Pres- 
bytery, with  said  correspondents,  be  appointed  to  act  as  a  commis- 
sion of  the  Synod,  and  in  that  capacity  judge  that  affair.  The 
Synod,"  it  is  added,  "granted  the  request,  and  accordingly  ap- 
pointed Messrs.  Boyd,  Tate,  and  Smith,  to  meet  with  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Castle  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  August  next,  at  New 
London,  for  that  purpose,  and  further,  enjoined  the  said  Presby- 
tery to  give  timely  notice  to  Mr.  Alison's  congregation  of  the 
design  of  the  said  meeting. "J 

Some  misunderstanding  having  occurred  between  the  Presby- 
teries of  Philadelphia  and  New  Castle,  as  to  whose  duty  it  was  to 
ordain  Mr.  Kinkead,  neither  finding  it  convenient  to  attend,  the 
Synod  decided,  "  that,  inasmuch  as  the  congregations  of  the  Great 
Valley  and  Norrington,  properly  belong  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  that  the  said  Presbytery  should  attend  the  trials  and 

*  Minutes,  vol.  iii.  p.  63.    The  place  of  Mr.  Miller's  settlement  was  in  Rock- 
ingham county,  twenty-five  miles  from  Staunton. 
t  Ibid.  p.  40.  %  Ibid.  p.  43. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  227 

ordination  of  Mr.  Kinkead ;  and  lest  a  delay  might  be  occasioned 
by  the  paucity  and  distance  of  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  Mr.  Cathcart,  (of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,) 
was  ordered  to  correspond  with  the  said  Presbytery  as  an  assis- 
tant."* Upon  an  application  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 
in  1754,  it  was  "  ordered,  that  Messrs.  Boyd  and  Smith  sit  with 
them  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Synod,  and  be  excused  from 
attending  Donegal  Presbytery  further  than  they  think  it  conve- 
nient ;  and  that  Mr.  Kinkead  correspond  with  them  in  August 
next."f 

The  Synod,  in  the  exercise  of  its  supervisory  care  over  the 
churches  and  its  own  members,  frequently  insisted  upon  a  more 
punctual  attendance  upon  its  own  meetings.  In  1746,  it  is  recorded, 
"  that  the  Synod  finding  several  of  their  ministers  absent,  from 
year  to  year,  and  particularly  some  members  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Donegal,  cannot  look  upon  such  conduct  otherwise  than  as  irregular 
and  of  dangerous  consequences  ;  and  do  therefore  order  that  every 
Presbytery  inform  their  respective  members  thereof,  and  that  the 
Synod  expects  some  reasons  of  such  absence,  and  better  attendance 
hereafter."!  A  similar  order,  in  reference  to  the  distant  members 
in  Virginia,  was  made  in  1747  ;  and,  in  1748,  it  was  ordered,  "  that 
the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  write  to  Virginia,  to  let  the  ministers 
know  that  we  expect  one  of  their  members  yearly  to  attend  the 
Synod,  that  we  may  know  the  state  of  the  churches. "§  In  1754, 
"  it  was  observed,  that  Messrs.  Black  and  Craig  have  neglected 
attending  on  the  Synod  for  some  considerable  time,  and  it  was 
ordered  that  Mr.  McDowell  write  to  those  brethren,  and  signify  to 
them  that  the  Synod  expects  that  they  either  attend  or  write ;  and 
that,  in  case  of  failure,  the  Synod  will  be  obliged  to  disown  them 
a3  members."  || 

Whenever  any  infraction  of  the  constitution  occurred,  the  Synod 
were  in  the  habit  of  interposing  to  censure  or  rectify  the  irregu- 
larity. In  1752,  "  the  Synod  having  deliberately  considered  the 
affair  of  Mr.  Alison's  removal  to  Philadelphia,  referred  to  them  by 

*  Minutes,  p.  44.  f  Ibid.  p.  4G  J  Ibid.  p.  14. 

\  Ibid.  p.  21.  ||  Ibid.  p.  63. 


228  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  judged  that  the  method  he  used  is 
contrary  to  the  Presbyterian  plan  ;  yet,  considering  that  the  cir- 
cumstances which  urged  him  to  take  the  method  he  used,  were  very 
pressing,  and  that  it  was  indeed  almost  impracticable  for  him  to 
apply  for  the  consent  of  Presbytery  or  Synod  in  the  ordinary  way ; 
and  further,  being  persuaded  that  Mr.  Alison's  being  employed  in 
such  a  station  in  the  academy  has  a  favourable  aspect  in  several 
respects,  and  a  very  probable  tendency  not  only  to  promote  the 
good  of  the  public,  but  also  of  the  church,  as  he  may  be  service- 
able to  the  interests  thereof  in  teaching  philosophy  or  divinity,  as 
far  as  his  obligations  to  the  academy  permit ;  we  judge  his  pro- 
ceedings in  the  said  affair  are  in  a  good  measure  excusable.  Withal 
the  Synod  advises  that,  for  the  future,  its  members  be  very  cautious, 
and  guard  against  such  proceedings  as  are  contrary  to  our  known 
and  approved  methods  in  such  cases."* 

It  appears  from  the  minutes  for  1755,  that  some  sessions  had 
refused  to  allow  the  annual  collections  to  be  taken  up  in  their 
churches  :  whereupon  the  Synod  resolved,  "that  as  it  is  a  synodical 
appointment,  it  is  inconsistent  with  our  church  government  to  be 
under  the  check  of  a  church  session.  They,  indeed,  may  give  or 
withhold  their  charity,  but  may  not  prevent  a  minister  from  pro- 
posing it  publicly  according  to  our  appointment.  Ordered,  like- 
wise, that  every  Presbytery  take  care  of  the  conduct  of  their  mem- 
bers, how  they  observe  this  appointment  previous  to  their  coming 
to  the  Synod,  and  that  they  gather  the  collection  from  absent 
members."  f 

Not  unfrequently  the  Synod  was  called  upon  to  decide  casuistical 
questions.  For  example,  a  young  man  having  promised  marriage 
to  a  young  woman,  was  desirous  to  be  freed  from  his  engagement ; 
but  the  young  woman,  though  willing  to  release  him,  scrupled  the 
lawfulness  of  doing  so.  The  question  was,  therefore,  submitted  to 
the  Synod,  "  Whether  a  single  man  and  woman,  having  promised 
marriage  to  each  other,  may  lawfully  agree  again  to  release  each 
other  from  the  promise  ?  and  after  mature  consideration  the  Synod 
resolved  the  case,  that  it  was  lawful :  nemine  contradieente."  The 
*  Minutes,  p.  41.  f  Ibid.  p.  49. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  229 

young  man  in  question,  however,  was  called  before  the  Synod,  and 
publicly  rebuked,  in  order,  as  it  is  said,  "  to  show  our  detestation 
of  such  rash  proceedings."* 

In  1751,  the  question  came  up  from  the  session  of  the  church  at 
Neshaminy,  by  a  reference  from  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
Whether  a  young  man  to  whom  an  illegitimate  child  had  been 
imputed  upon  the  oath  of  the  mother,  but  who  denied  the  charge, 
and  in  a  civil  trial  had  been  acquitted  by  a  jury,  might  be  admitted 
to  church  privileges  ?    It  was  decided  that  he  might. 

In  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  a 
niece  of  his  former  wife  was  declared  null  and  void,  and  separation 
and  confession  of  sin  enjoined,  f  That  Presbytery  was  in  the  habit 
of  pronouncing  divorces,  as  far  as  marriage  was  a  religious  bond, 
referring  the  parties,  however,  to  the  civil  authorities  for  the  disso- 
lution of  the  civil  contract  between  them. 

The  period  of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  as  already  stated,  was 
a  season  of  great  uneasiness  and  distress.  In  Pennsylvania  there 
was  almost  a  continued  controversy  between  the  Assembly  and  the 
proprietary  government,  which  operated  greatly  to  the  injury  of 
the  colony,  which  was  at  the  same  time  the  theatre  of  many  of 
the  disasters  attending  the  French  and  Indian  wars.  To  these 
events  repeated  allusion  is  made  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod. 
In  1755,  it  is  recorded,  "  the  Synod  having  taken  into  considera- 
tion the  prevailing  iniquity  which  abounds  in  our  land,  and  the 
many  tokens  of  the  Divine  displeasure  we  are  under,  being  threat- 
ened with  a  dangerous  war,  left  to  manifold  divisions  and  confu- 
sions in  church  and  state,  and  the  rain  from  heaven  restrained,  to 
the  great  damage  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth ;  do  therefore  agree, 
that  the  12th  day  of  June  be  observed  as  a  day  of  fasting  and 
humiliation  through  all  our  bounds,  to  bewail  our  sins  and  the  'sins 
of  our  land,  to  deprecate  the  divine  displeasure  which  we  deserve, 
and  implore  God  to  remove  these  tokens  of  his  anger,  and  save  us 
from  the  strokes  we  now  feel,  fear,  and  deserve. "| 

Again,  in  1757,  it  is  said,  "  the  Synod  having  taken  under  serious 
consideration  the  melancholy  state  of  the  British  dominions  and  of 

*  Minutes,  p.  28.  f  Minutes  of  Donegal,  p.  165.  J  Minutes,  p.  52. 


230  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

their  allies,  the  danger  of  the  Protestant  interest  in  general,  and 
particularly  of  the  English  colonies  of  America,  arising  from  the 
formidable  combination  of  antichristian  powers  in  Europe,  and 
the  shocking  depredations  and  barbarities  of  the  heathen  on  our 
borders,  influenced  and  abetted  by  the  perfidious,  restless  enemies 
of  our  civil  and  religious  liberties ;  as  also  the  abounding  profanity 
and  wickedness  of  all  ranks  and  degrees  of  men ;  the  awful  con- 
tempt cast  upon  the  glorious  gospel  of  Christ,  not  only  by  the  pro- 
fessed infidelity  of  its  open  adversaries,  but  also  by  the  unbelief, 
hypocrisy,  and  uncharitableness,  and  loose  practices  of  its  professed 
friends  ;  and  being  deeply  sensible  of,  and  affected  with,  the  ungrate- 
ful abuse  and  misimprovement  of  the  many  privileges  we  have 
enjoyed ;  our  peace,  plenty,  and  liberty  having  been  turned  into 
wantonness,  pride,  and  licentiousness ;  and  being  firmly  persuaded 
that  for  these  things  God  is  testifying  his  displeasure  against  us, 
both  at  home  and  abroad,  by  a  calamitous  war,  in  which  we  are 
involved,  while  an  amazing  insensibility  generally  prevails  under 
the  present  gloomy  appearances  of  divine  Providence,  and  a  want 
of  public  spirit  and  zeal  for  the  common  good,  do,  for  these  and 
the  like  reasons,  recommend  the  twenty-third  day  of  June  next  to 
be  observed  by  the  people  belonging  to  the  Synod,  as  a  day  of 
public  humiliation,  fasting,  and  prayer,  throughout  their  bounds,  to 
bewail  our  aggravated  and  crying  sins,  to  deprecate  the  deserved 
wrath  of  heaven,  and  to  implore  the  divine  mercy  and  forgiveness, 
that  the  Spirit  of  grace  may  be  poured  out  upon  us,  that  as  a 
people  we  may  turn  unto  the  Lord  by  a  sincere  repentance ;  that 
God  would  preserve  and  bless  our  gracious  king,  direct  his  counsels, 
go  forth  with  his  fleets  and  armies,  also  with  those  of  his  allies,  and 
crown  them  with  success ;  that  he  would  guard  and  defend  our  sea- 
coasts  and  frontiers  against  all  the  designs  of  our  enemies ;  that  he 
would  preserve  to  us  our  invaluable  liberties,  both  civil  and  reli- 
gious ;  that  he  would  yet  bless  us  with  fruitful  seasons,  mercifully 
heal  our  divisions,  and  cause  our  present  confusions  happily  to  ter- 
minate in  the  glorious  advancement  of  the  peaceful  kingdom  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Accordingly,  it  is  ordered,  that  our  minis- 
ters represent  these  things  to  the  people  under  our  care,  and  excite 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  231 

them  to  these  solemn  exercises ;  and,  for  that  end,  suit  their  ser- 
mons and  prayers  on  that  day  to  the  important  occasion."* 


SYNOD   OF   NEW   YORK. 

Immediately  after  the  schism  in  1741,  as  stated  in  a  preceding 
chapter,  the  brethren  excluded  from  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
formed  themselves  into  two  presbyteries,  those  of  New  Brunswick 
and  of  Londonderry,  afterwards  called  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle,  and  resolved  to  meet  annually  as  a  Synod.  This  they  did, 
though  under  the  designation  of  "  conjunct  Presbytery."  The 
name  Synod  was  not  assumed  until  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
united  with  these  brethren  in  the  formation  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  which  met  for  the  first  time  at  Elizabethtown,  September 
19,  1745.  There  were  twenty-two  ministers  present  at  that  meet- 
ing, f  The  ministers  and  elders  thus  assembled,  "  considered  and 
agreed  upon  the  following  articles  as  the  plan  and  foundation  of 
their  synodical  union  : 

u  1.  They  agree  that  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  with 
the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  be  the  public  confession  of  their 
faith,  in  such  manner  as  was  agreed  unto  by  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia in  the  year  1729,  and  to  be  inserted  in  the  latter  end  of 
this  book. |  And  they  declare  their  approbation  of  the  Directory 
of  the  assembly  of  divines  at  Westminster,  as  the  general  plan  of 
worship  and  discipline. 

"  2.  They  agree  that  in  matters  of  discipline,  and  in  those  things 

*  Minutes,  p.  67. 

f  To  wit :  Messrs.  Jonathan  Dickinson,  John  Pierson,  Ebenezer  Pemberton, 
Simon  Horton,  Aaron  Burr,  A^ariah  Horton,  Timothy  Jones,  Eliab  Byram, 
and  Robert  Sturgeon,  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York ;  Messrs.  Gilbert  Ten- 
nent,  Joseph  Lamb,  William  Tennent,  Richard  Treat,  James  McCrea,  William 
Robinson,  David  Youngs,  Charles  Beatty,  and  Charles  McKnight,  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Brunswick  ;  Messrs.  Samuel  Blair,  Samuel  Finley,  Charles  Ten- 
nent, and  John  Blair,  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle. 

X  The  act  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith,  passed  in  1729,  is  accordingly 
to  be  found  in  the  Appendix  to  the  synodical  minutes,  p.  1. 


232  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

that  relate  to  the  peace  and  good  order  of  our  churches,  they  shall 
be  determined  according  to  the  major  vote  of  the  ministers  and 
elders ;  with  which  vote  every  member  shall  actively  concur  or 
pacifically  acquiesce ;  but  if  any  member  cannot  in  conscience 
agree  to  the  determination  of  the  majority,  but  supposes  himself 
obliged  to  act  contrary  thereunto,  and  the  Synod  think  themselves 
obliged  to  insist  upon  it  as  essentially  necessary  to  the  well-being 
of  our  churches,  in  that  case,  such  dissenting  member  promises 
peaceably  to  withdraw  from  the  body,  without  endeavouring  to 
raise  any  dispute  or  contention  upon  the  debated  point,  or  any 
unjust  alienation  of  affection  from  them. 

"  3.  If  any  member  of  their  body  supposes  that  he  has  any  thing 
to  object  against  any  of  his  brethren,  with  respect  to  error  in  doc- 
trine, immorality  in  life,  or  negligence  in  his  ministry,  he  shall 
not,  on  any  account,  propagate  the  scandal,  until  the  person  ob- 
jected against  is  dealt  with  according  to  the  rules  of  the  gospel, 
and  the  known  methods  of  their  discipline. 

"4.  They  agree  that  all  who  have  a  competent  degree  of  ministerial 
knowledge,  are  orthodox  in  their  doctrine,  regular  in  their  life,  and  dili- 
gent in  their  endeavours  to  promote  the  important  designs  of  vital  god- 
liness, and  that  will  submit  to  their  discipline,  shall  be  cheerfully  ad- 
mitted into  their  communion.  And  they  do  also  agree,  that  in  order 
to  avoid  all  divisive  methods  among  their  ministers  and  congregations, 
and  to  strengthen  the  discipline  of  Christ  in  the  churches  in  these 
parts,  they  will  maintain  a  correspondence  with  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  this  their  first  meeting,  by  appointing  two  of  their 
members  to  meet  the  said  Synod  of  Philadelphia  at  their  next  con- 
vention, and  to  concert  with  them  such  measures  as  may  best  pro- 
mote the  precious  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom  in  these  parts. 
And  that  they  may,  in  no  respect,  encourage  any  factious,  sepa- 
rating practices  or  principles,  they  agree  that  they  will  not  inter- 
meddle with  judicially  hearing  the  complaints,  or  with  supplying 
with  ministers  or  candidates  such  parties  of  men  as  shall  separate 
from  any  Presbyterian  or  congregational  churches,  that  are  not 
within  their  bounds,  unless  the  matters  in  controversy  be  submitted 
to  thur  jurisdiction  by  both  parties."* 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  pp.  2-4. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  233 

No  one  at  all  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  schism  can  fail 
to  remark  that  these  articles  were  intended  to  guard  against  the 
occurrence  of  a  similar  unhappy  division.  The  principal  ostensible 
causes  of  the  rupture,  were  disregarding  the  acts  of  Synod,  the 
public  denunciation  of  ministers  in  good  standing,  and  the  dividing 
of  congregations.  As  to  all  these  points,  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent 
and  his  immediate  friends,  had  ever  been  in  a  small  minority.  It 
was  their  zeal  for  practical  religion,  and  not  their  conduct  in  the 
matters  just  specified,  which  was  the  ground  of  sympathy  between 
them  and  their  numerous  associates  in  the  formation  of  a  new 
Synod.  There  is  little  doubt  that  Mr.  Tennent  assented  to  these 
articles  as  readily  as  any  man ;  for  it  was  only  on  the  ground  of 
the  extraordinary  circumstances  of  the  times,  that  he  justified  his 
occasional  disregard  of  the  principles  which  they  contain. 

This  Synod,  founded  upon  fhe  above  truly  Presbyterian  and 
Christian  principles,  and  embracing  so  large  a  portion  of  the  most 
fervent  and  able  men  of  the  church,  rapidly  increased  in  numbers 
and  influence.  In  1746,  we  find  the  following  names  of  ministers 
who  were  not  present  at  the  preceding  meeting,  John  Roan,  John 
Bostwick,  Thomas  Arthur,  John  Grant,  Andrew  Hunter,  David 
Brainerd,  William  Dean,  Eleazar  Wales.*  In  1747,  the  following 
new  names  occur :  Jacob  Green,  Nathaniel  Tucker,  James  Camp- 
bell, James  Davenport,  Daniel  Laurence,  Samuel  Sackett,  Timothy 
Sims,  Alexander  Hucheson,  and  Samuel  Davies ;  in  1748,  Job 
Prudden,  Thomas  Lewis,  and  Andrew  Sterling;  in  1749,  John 
Rodgers,  Aaron  Richards,  Caleb  Smith,  Silas  Leonard,  Charles 
McKnight,f  and  the  whole  Presbytery  of  Suffolk,  Long  Island. 
That  Presbytery  applied  the  preceding  year  to  be  taken  into  com- 
munion with  Synod,  and  requested  to  be  permitted  to  attend  by 
delegates.  This  the  Synod  declined,  but  offered  to  receive  them 
upon   the  same  terms  as  they  did  other  Presbyteries.     This  was 

*  Mr.  Wales  was  one  of  the  original  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Brunswick.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred,  therefore,  that  a  minister  was  received 
into  the  Synod,  the  year  his  name  first  happens  to  appear  on  the  minutes. 

f  Mr.  McKnight's  name  does  not  occur  on  the  books  of  the  Synod  before 
1749,  though  he  was  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  in  1744. 


234  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

acceded  to,  and  Messrs.  Ebenezer  Prime  and  James  Brown  took 
their  scats  as  members  of  Synod  in  1749.  The  absent  members 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Suffolk,  as  then  constituted,  as  far  as  can  be 
gathered  from  the  minutes,  were  Silvanus  White,  Samuel  Buel,  and 
Naphtali  Dagget.  In  1750,  the  new  members  reported  were  Tim- 
othy Allen,  Israel  Read,  John  Brainard,  Elihu  Spencer,  Daniel 
Thane,  and  Enos  Ayres  ;  in  1751,  John  Moffat,  Chauncey  Gra- 
ham, Samuel  Kennedy,  Benjamin  Chesnut,  Alexander  Cummings, 
Jonathan  Elmore,  John  Campbell,  John  Todd,  and  Hugh  Henry ; 
in  1752,  Conrad  Wurtz,  Robert  Smith,  and  James  Finley ;  in  1753, 
Evander  Morrison,  Samuel  Harker,  Alexander  Creaghead,  (who,  it 
seems,  had  left  the  Seceders  and  returned  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church,)  Joseph  Park,  and  Robert  Henry;  in  1754,  John  Smith, 
Nehemiah  Greenman,  Henry  Martin,  John  Maltby,  Eliphalet  Ball, 
and  John  Wright;  in  1755,  Hugh  Knox,  John  Brown,  and  John 
Hoge ;  in  1756,  Nathaniel  Whitaker,  Benjamin  Hait,  Benjamin 
Talmage,  Abner  Reeves,  Moses  Tuttle,  and  John  Harris  ;  in  1757, 
William  Ramsay,  George  Duffield,  and  Hugh  McAdams  ;  in  1758, 
Abraham  Kettletas.  The  whole  number  of  ministers  reported  as 
in  connection  with  the  Synod  in  1758,  the  year  in  which  the  union 
with  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  took  place,  was  seventy-two. 

In  the  history  of  this  Synod,  the  first  subject  to  be  considered 
is  their  missionary  labours.  In  1745,  at  their  first  meeting,  the 
circumstances  of  Virginia  were  brought  before  them,  and  the  opin- 
ion unanimously  expressed  that  Mr.  Robinson  was  the  proper  per- 
son to  visit  that  colony.  He  was  accordingly  earnestly  pressed  to 
go  and  spend  some  months  there.*  Mr.  Robinson  had  already,  as 
mentioned  in  a  previous  chapter,  preached  in  Virginia  with  great 
acceptance  and  success  in  1743,  having  been  sent  thither  by  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick.  In  1746,  a  supplication  for  a  min- 
ister was  presented  to  the  Synod  from  Hanover,  in  Virginia,  which 
was  referred  to  the  Presbyteries  of  New  Castle  and  New  Bruns 
wick.  Before  Mr.  Robinson's  visit  to  Virginia,  in  1743,  besides 
the  numerous  Presbyterian  emigrants  who  had  settled  in  what  were 
then  the  western  portions  of  the  colony,  there  were  four  or  five 

*  Minutes,  p.  4. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  235 

families  in  Hanover,  who  had  separated  from  the  established  church, 
and  were  accustomed  to  celebrate  public  worship  among  themselves. 
For  this  little  company  Mr.  Robinson  preached  repeatedly  during  a 
stay  of  four  days  in  their  neighbourhood.  After  his  departure  they 
made  repeated  applications  for  supplies  to  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle,  who  sent  them  several  ministers  at  different  times  during  four 
years,  who  stayed  with  them  two  or  three  sabbaths  at  a  time.  Dur- 
ing this  period  they  were  also  visited  by  Messrs.  G.  and  W.  Ten- 
nent  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick.  The  number  of  dissent- 
ers in  and  about  Hanover  had,  by  this  time,  so  much  increased,  that 
in  1747,  when  Mr.  Davies  was  first  sent  to  them  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle,  in  compliance  with  their  earnest  request,  he  "  found 
them  sufficiently  numerous  to  form  one  very  large  congregation  or 
two  small  ones ;  and  they  had  built  five  meeting-houses,  three  in 
Hanover,  one  in  Henrico,  and  one  in  Louisa  county."*  They 
presented  a  most  earnest  call  before  the  Presbytery  for  Mr.  Davies 
to  settle  among  them  as  their  pastor,  which  he  accepted  in  1748. 
The  labours  of  this  eminent  man  "  were  very  successful  in  every 
part  of  the  country  where  he  itinerated,  much  more  so  than  he 
supposed ;  for  to  this  day,  (1799,)  we  find  many  seals  of  his  min- 
istry scattered  up  and  down  the  country  wherever  he  preached  ; 
and  there  are  few  congregations  in  this  Presbytery,  (Hanover,) 
that  may  not  acknowledge  that  he  was  in  a  great  measure  their 
founder,  "f 

In  1748,  the  Synod  sent  Mr.  Cumming  to  Augusta  county,  and 
Mr.  Hunter  to  the  lower  counties  in  Virginia,  to  spend  four  Sab- 
baths. |  In  1749,  Mr.  Davenport  was  directed  to  visit  Virginia, 
and  in  1750,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  was  urged  to  send 
Mr.  Todd,  and  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  Messrs.  Syms  and 
Greenman  to  the  same  field  of  labour.  The  Synod  also  renewed 
the  appointment  of  Mr.  Davenport.  In  1751,  "  the  distressing 
circumstances  of  Virginia,"  were  again  brought  before  the  Synod, 

*  See  letter  of  Mr.  Davies   to  the  Bishop  of  London,  dated,  January  10, 
1752,  printed  in  the  Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review,  for  April,  1840. 
f  MS.  History.  %  Minutes,  p.  12. 


236  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

who  appointed  Mr.  Greenman  to  go  there  and  supply  the  congre- 
gations for  some  time.  The  same  year  Mr.  Davies  requested,  that 
an  account  relating  to  the  dissenting  interests  in  Virginia,  should 
be  sent  to  England,  and  Messrs.  Burr  and  Pemberton  were  ap- 
p  )inted  to  prepare  a  representation  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
Presbyterian  congregations  in  that  colony,  to  be  forwarded  to  Drs. 
Doddridge  and  Avery.* 

As  the  Church  of  England  was  early  established  in  Virginia, 
the  Presbyterians  were  there  legally  in  the  position  of  dissenters. 
The  colonial  assembly  had  passed  a  law  adopting  the  English  tole- 
ration act  as  a  law  of  the  colony.  It  was  on  this  ground,  and  not 
on  that  of  its  original  enactment,  that  Mr.  Davies  and  other  Pres- 
byterians recognized  its  authority  and  complied  with  its  provisions. 
This  is  distinctly  stated  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Davies  to  Dr.  Avery 
of  London,  dated  May  21,  1752.  "  I  am  fully  satisfied,"  he  says, 
"that,  as  you  intimate,  the  act  of  uniformity  and  other  penal  laws 
against  non-conformity,  are  not  in  force  in  the  colonies ;  and  con- 
sequently that  the  dissenters  have  no  right,  nor  indeed  any  need  to 
plead  the  act  of  toleration  as  an  exemption  from  those  penal  laws. 
But,  sir,  our  legislature  here  has  passed  an  act  of  the  same  kind 
with  those  laws,  (though  the  penalty  is  less,)  requiring  all  adult 
persons  to  attend  on  the  established  church.  As  this  act  was  passed 
since  the  revolution,  it  was  necessary  that  protestant  dissenters 
should  be  exempted  from  its  operation,  and  tolerated  to  worship 
God  in  separate  assemblies,  (though  indeed  at  the  time  of  its  enac- 
tion, viz. :  the  fourth  of  Queen  Anne,  there  was  not  a  dissenting 
congregation,  except  a  few  Quakers,  in  the  colony,)  and  for  this 
our  legislature  thought  fit  to  take  in  the  act  of  parliament  made 
for  that  end  in  England,  rather  than  to  pass  a  new  one  peculiar  to 
this  colony.  This,  sir,  you  may  see  in  my  remonstrance  to  the 
governor  and  council,  which  I  find  has  been  laid  before  you.  Now 
it  is  with  a  view  to  exempt  ourselves  from  the  operation  of  the 
above  law,  made  by  our  legislature,  that  we  plead  it  not  as  an  Eng- 
lish law,  for  we  are  persuaded  that  it  does  not  extend  hither  by 
virtue  of  its  original  enaction,  but  as  received  into  the  body  of  th« 

*  Minutes,  p  32. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  237 

Virginia  laws  by  our  legislature.  And  though  some  pretended  to 
scruple,  and  others  denied  that  the  act  of  toleration  is  in  force 
here,  even  in  this  sense,  yet  now  I  think  it  is  generally  granted."* 
A  difference  of  opinion,  however,  arose  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
act.  The  Episcopalians  were  naturally  desirous  to  restrict  the  pri- 
vileges granted  by  it  within  the  narrowest  limits,  and  therefore 
contended  that  the  law  did  not  permit  the  same  congregation  to 
have  more  than  one  meeting-house,  or  the  same  minister  to  officiate 
for  more  than  one  congregation.  In  a  letter  written  from  Virginia 
to  the  bishop  of  London,  July  27,  1750,  it  is  made  a  matter  of 
complaint,  that  "  seven  meeting-houses,  in  five  different  counties, 
have  been  licensed  by  the  general  court,  for  Mr.  Samuel  Davies  ;" 
and,  the  writer  adds,  "  I  earnestly  entreat  the  favour  of  your  lord- 
ship's opinion,  whether  in  licensing  so  many  houses  for  one  man 
they  have  not  granted  a  greater  indulgence  than  either  the  king's 
instructions,  or  the  act  of  toleration,  intended."  He  further  com- 
plains of  Mr.  Davies'  "  holding  forth  on  working  days  to  great 
numbers  of  poor  people,  who  generally  are  his  followers.  This 
certainly  is  inconsistent  with  the  religion  of  labour,  whereby  they 
are  obliged  to  maintain  themselves  and  families ;  and  their  neglect 
of  this  duty,  if  not  seasonably  prevented,  may,  in  process  of  time, 
be  sensibly  felt  by  the  government."  In  his  reply,  dated  London, 
December  25,  1750,  the  bishop  says,  "  As  to  Davies'  case,  as  far 
as  I  can  judge,  your  attorney-general,  (Peyton  Randolph,  Esq.) 

*  The  account  of  this  matter  given  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  in  his  interest- 
ing volume  on  the  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Virginia, 
is  suited  to  lead  his  readers  into  a  mistake.  He  says,  "  The  officers  of  the 
government,  who  of  course  adhered  to  the  establishment,  strenuously  con- 
tended that  his  (Mr.  Davies',)  proceedings  were  illegal,  inasmuch  as  the 
English  act  of  toleration  did  not  extend  to  Virginia.  This  position  was  denied 
by  the  dissenters,  who  claimed  equal  rights  with  their  brethren  at  home,  and 
the  matter  was  brought  before  the  courts  of  the  colony."  p.  109.  This  account 
gives  an  erroneous  impression,  because  it  is  defective.  It  does  not  state  the 
ground  on  which  Mr.  Davies  claimed  the  protection  of  the  English  act  of  tole- 
ration. He  appealed  to  it  not  as  an  English,  but  as  a  Virginia  act.  It  would 
indeed  be  a  strange  sight  to  see  Presbyterians  pleading  for  the  extension  of 
the  English  ecclesiastical  laws  to  the  colonies. 


238  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

is  quite  in  the  right,  for  the  act  of  toleration  confines  the  preacher 
to  a  particular  place  to  be  certified  and  entered."  It  was  "in- 
tended," he  adds,  "to  permit  dissenters  to  worship  in  their  own 
way,  and  to  exempt  them  from  penalties,  but  it  was  never  intended 
to  permit  them  to  set  up  itinerant  preachers  to  gather  congrega- 
tions where  there  was  none  before.  They  are,  by  the  act  of  Wil- 
liam and  Mary,  to  qualify  in  the  county  where  they  live;  and  how 
Davies  can  be  said  to  live  in  five  different  counties,  they  who 
granted  the  license  must  explain."  As  Dr.  Doddridge  was  a  friend 
to  the  bishop  of  London,  Mr.  Davies  wrote  to  him  an  account  of 
his  circumstances,  requesting  him  to  communicate  to  the  bishop  a 
correct  representation  of  the  case.  Dr.  Doddridge  inclosed  to  the 
bishop  a  large  part  of  Mr.  Davies'  letter,  and  received  an  answer, 
dated  May  11,  1751,  containing  the  above  extracts  from  the  letter 
from  Virginia,  with  the  bishop's  reply,  as  containing  his  opinion  on 
the  matter  in  dispute,  and  adds,  "  If  the  act  of  toleration  was  de- 
sired with  no  other  view  than  to  ease  the  consciences  of  those  who 
could  not  conform,  and  if  it  was  granted  with  no  other  view,  how 
must  Mr.  Davies'  conduct  be  justified  ?  who,  under  colour  of  a  tole- 
ration to  his  own  conscience,  is  labouring  to  disturb  the  consciences 
of  others,  and  the  peace  of  a  church,  acknowledged  to  be  a  true 
church  of  Christ.  He  came  three  hundred  miles  from  home,  not 
to  serve  people  who  had  scruples,  but  to  a  country  where  the  church 
of  England  had  been  established  from  its  first  plantation,  and  where 
there  were  not  above  four  or  five  dissenters  not  above  six  years  ago. 
Mr.  Davies  says,  in  his  letter  to  you,  '  we  claim  no  other  liberties 
than  those  granted  by  the  act  of  toleration,'  so  that  the  state  of 
the  question  is  admitted,  on  both  sides,  to  be  this,  How  far  the  act 
of  toleration  will  justify  Mr.  Davies  in  taking  upon  himself  to  be 
an  itinerant  preacher,  and  travelling  over  many  counties,  and 
making  converts  in  a  country  too,  where,  till  very  lately,  there  was 
not  a  dissenter  from  the  church  of  England?"  Dr.  Doddridge 
sent  the  bishop's  letter,  with  its  enclosures,  or  copies  of  them,  to 
Mr.  Davies,  who  wrote  a  long  communication  to  the  bishop,  in 
which  he  corrected  his  .misapprehensions  as  to  matters  of  fact,  and 
showed  the  reasonableness  of  the  claims  which  the  Presbyterians 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  230 

had  set  up.  He  shows  him  that,  so  far  from  his  volunteering  t«, 
make  dissenters  where  there  were  none  before,  when  he  first  came 
to  Virginia,  they  were  sufficiently  numerous  to  form  a  large  con- 
gregation, and  that  he  came  and  settled  among  them  at  their  own 
earnest  request.  If  they  had  still  further  increased,  it  was  not 
from  a  spirit  of  proselytism  on  his  part,  for  "I  beg  leave  to  de- 
clare," he  says,  u  and  I  defy  the  world  to  confute  me,  that  in  all 
the  sermons  I  have  preached  in  Virginia,  I  have  not  wasted  one 
minute  in  exclaiming  or  reasoning  against  the  peculiarities  of  the 
established  church,  nor  so  much  as  assigned  the  reasons  of  my  own 
non-conformity."  Those,  therefore,  who  had  joined  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  since  his  settlement  in  Virginia,  had  done  so,  not  be- 
cause of  his  efforts  to  make  dissenters,  but  because  of  their  prefer- 
ence for  his  doctrines  and  preaching.  And  in  thus  acting  they 
had  violated  no  law.  These  remarks  were  made  in  reference  to  his 
own  immediate  congregation  ;  as  to  other  Presbyterians  equally 
interested  in  the  points  in  debate,  they  had  been  born  and  educated 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  had  emigrated  to  Virginia,  greatly 
to  its  advantage,  in  the  confidence  of  enjoying  the  free  exercise  of 
their  religion.  And  to  this  latter  class  the  great  majority  of  the 
Presbyterians  within  the  colony  belonged.  He  further  showed, 
that  it  was  not  only  reasonable  in  itself,  but  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  law  and  with  usage,  for  a  congregation,  too  widely  scat- 
tered to  be  able  conveniently  to  assemble  in  one  place,  to  erect 
several  houses  of  worship  for  their  accommodation.  This  was  done 
in  all  the  large  parishes  connected  with  the  established  church,  and 
the  Presbyterians  claimed,  under  the  law,  the  right  of  doing  the 
same  thing. 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  the  controversy  on  this  subject,  that  Mr. 
Davies  applied  for  the  support  of  the  Synod  in  the  manner  stated 
in  the  minutes  for  the  year  1751.  This  subject  long  continued  to 
be  a  matter  of  difficulty.  In  1753,  a  representation  was  again 
made  to  the  Synod  "  of  the  illegal  restraints  the  Protestant  dissen- 
ters lie  under  in  Virginia,  as  to  their  religious  liberties  ;"  and  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  draw  up  a  representation  to  be  sent  to 
England  with  Mr.  Davies.* 

*  Minutes,  p.  62. 


240  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCII 

Notwithstanding  these  obstacles,  the  Presbyterian  Church  con- 
tinued to  increase  in  the  southern  provinces,  and  the  Synod  almost 
yearly  sent  one  or  more  of  their  number  to  preach  the  gospel  in 
that  portion  of  our  country.  In  1754,  Messrs.  Beatty,  Bostwick, 
Lewis,  and  Thane,  were  appointed  to  go  to  the  south,  particularly 
to  North  Carolina,  for  three  months.*  In  1755,  Messrs.  Brainard 
and  Spencer  were  sent  to  North  Carolina,  and  Mr.  Clark  to  Vir- 
ginia, f  In  1750,  Messrs.  Duffield,  Ramsay,  Brainard,  and  Rodgers, 
were  directed  to  go  to  the  south  before  the  winter,  and  Messrs. 
Whitaker  and  Hait  to  spend  four  months  there. J  These  appoint- 
ments, however,  as  appears  from  the  minutes  for  the  following  year, 
were  not  fulfilled.  In  1757,  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Hait  was 
renewed,  and  the  Presbyteries  of  New  Castle  and  Hanover  were 
directed  each  to  send  another  missionary.  In  1758,  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Brunswick  was  directed  to  send  a  candidate  to  North  Caro- 
lina, and  the  Presbytery  of  Suffolk  was  earnestly  recommended  to 
send  Mr.  Brush  to  the  same  important  vacancies. §  As  so  large  a 
portion  of  the  duty  of  supplying  the  new  settlements  was  devolved 
upon  the  presbyteries,  the  above  notices  exhibit  but  a  small  part  of 
the  missionary  labours  of  this  Synod. 

Our  fathers  were  not  altogether  inattentive  to  the  religious  in- 
struction of  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of  the  country.  In  1751, 
"  the  exigencies  of  the  great  affair  of  propagating  the  gospel  among 
the  heathen  being  represented  to  the  Synod,  the  Synod,  in  order 
to  promote  so  important  a  design,  do  enjoin  upon  all  their  members 
to  appoint  a  collection  in  their  several  congregations  once  a  year, 
to  be  applied  for  that  purpose ;  and  that  the  money  thus  collected 
be  sent  yearly  to  the  Synod."  |j  In  1752,  it  was  ordered  that  the 
proceeds  of  the  collections  in  behalf  of  the  Indians,  be  placed  in 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Brainard.  In  1755,  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  reported 
that  he  had  received  two  hundred  pounds  sterling,  from  England, 
for  propagating  the  gospel  among  the  Indians,  which,  agreeably  to 
the  directions  of  the  donor,  were  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
trustees  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  and  the  interest  to  be  em- 

*  Minutes,  p.  72.  f  Ibid.  pp.  79,  81.  J  Ibid.  p.  116. 

I  Ibid.  p.  135.  ||  Ibid.  p.  33. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  241 

ployed  in  supporting  a  missionary,  or  schoolmaster,  or  for  the  edu- 
cation of  a  heathen  youth  in  the  college,  or  of  a  young  man  of 
English  or  Scotch  extraction  as  a  teacher  among  the  Indians ;  the 
Synod  of  New  York  to  determine,  from  time  to  time,  to  which  of 
these  purposes  the  money  was  to  be  appropriated.* 

The  Synod  was  scarcely  less  zealous  for  the  promotion  of  learn- 
ing, than  they  were  in  behalf  of  religion.  They  had  not  indeed 
any  public  seminary  immediately  under  their  direction,  but  the 
college  at  Princeton  really  owed  its  existence  to  their  efforts.  It 
appears  from  the  records  of  the  province,  "  that  a  charter  to  incor- 
porate sundry  persons  to  found  a  college,  passed  the  great  seal  of 
the  province  of  New  Jersey,  tested  by  J.  Hamilton,  Esq.,  President 
of  his  Majesty's  Council  and  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Province 
of  New  Jersey,,  the  22d  of  October,  1746."f  As  this  charter  was 
never  recorded,  neither  its  provisions,  nor  the  names  of  the  trustees 
created  by  it,  are  now  known.  It  was  not  acceptable  to  those  who 
asked  for  it,  and  was  therefore  surrendered  for  another  obtained 
in  1748,  from  George  the  Second,  through  the  agency  of  Governor 
Belcher.  It  was  under  the  former  charter  that  Mr.  Dickinson 
acted  as  president  of  the  college  until  his  death  in  1747,  when  he 
was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Burr,  who  acted  in  that  capacity  until  1757. 
The  college,  no  doubt,  owed  much  of  its  early  prosperity  to  Gov- 
ernor Belcher,  a  religious,  able,  and  accomplished  man,  to  whom 
the  trustees  often  expressed  their  obligations.  On  one  occasion 
they  addressed  him  in  the  following  language  :  "  As  the  College  of 
New  Jersey  views  you  in  the  light  of  its  founder,  patron,  and  bene- 
factor, and  the  impartial  world  will  esteem  it  a  respect  deservedly 
due  to  the  name  of  Belcher,  permit  us  to  dignify  the  edifice  now 
erecting  at  Princeton,  with  that  endeared  appellation  ;  and  when 
your  excellency  is  translated  to  a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eter- 
nal in  the  heavens,  let  Belcher-Hall  proclaim  your  beneficent  acts 
for  the  advancement  of  Christianity  and  the  emolument  of  the  arts 
and  sciences  to  the  latest  generations."     This  honour  the  Governor 

*  Minutes,  p.  84  and  96. 

f  See  the  History  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  by  Dr.  Green,  appended  to 
his  Baccalaureate  Discourses. 
VOL.  II. — 16 


!242  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

modestly  declined,  and  proposed  the  name  of  Nassau-Hall,  in  proof 
"  of  the  honour  we  retain  in  this  remote  part  of  the  globe  to  the 
immortal  memory  of  the  glorious  King  William  the  Third,  who 
was  a  branch  of  the  illustrious  house  of  Nassau,  and  who,  under 
God,  was  the  great  deliverer  of  the  British  nation  from  those  two 
monstrous  furies,  popery  and  slavery."* 

Though  the  college  was  greatly  indebted  to  Governor  Belcher, 
it  was  nevertheless  the  child  of  the  Synod.  All  the  clerical  mem- 
bers of  the  board  of  the  trustees  belonged  to  the  Synod,  except 
Mr.  David  Cowell,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia. The  funds  also  which  founded  and  sustained  the  institution, 
were  collected  by  the  efforts  of  the  same  body.  In  1751,  the  trus- 
tees requested  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pemberton  might  be  appointed  to 
go  to  Europe  to  solicit  benefactions  for  the  college,  and  the  Synod 
accordingly  commissioned  Messrs.  Burr,  Treat,  William  Tennent, 
and  Davies,  to  proceed  at  once  to  New  York  to  arrange  the  matter 
with  Mr.  Pemberton  and  his  congregation.  This  committee  sub- 
sequently reported  that  they  had  failed  in  accomplishing  the  object 
of  their  mission. f  In  1752,  a  general  collection  was  appointed  in 
behalf  of  the  college,  and  it  was  "  ordered  that  all  other  collec- 
tions before  appointed,  be  suspended  on  that  account. "J 

In  1753,  the  trustees  of  the  college  petitioned  the  Synod  to 
send  two  of  their  number  to  Great  Britain  to  solicit  benefactions 
on  its  behalf.  This  request  led  to  the  appointment  of  Messrs.  Gil- 
bert Tennent  and  Samuel  Davies,  who  were  made  the  bearers  of 
an  address  to  the  General  Assembly  in  Scotland.  In  this  address, 
the  Synod  state  that  the  college  had  already  been  the  means  of 
educating  a  number  of  youth  then  engaged  in  the  service  of  the 
church;  that  after  all  that  could  be  done  in  this  country,  its 
resources  were  entirely  inadequate,  and  the  trustees  were,  there- 
fore, constrained  through  them  to  appeal  to  their  friends  in  Europe 
for  aid.  The  Synod  believing  the  object  to  be  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  the  interests  of  religion  and  learning  in  this  infant 
country,  proceeded  to  lay  before  the  Assembly  a  general  represent- 
ation of  the  deplorable  circumstances  of  the  churches  under  their 

*  Dr.  Green's  History,  p.  275.  f  Minutes,  p.  31.  J  Ibid.  p.  46. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  2i3 

care.  "There  are,"  it  is  added,  "in  the  colonies  of  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Carolina,  a 
great  number  of  congregations  formed  on  the  Presbyterian  plan, 
which  have  put  themselves  under  the  synodical  care  of  your  peti- 
tioners, who  conform  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
and  have  adopted  her  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  dis- 
cipline. There  are  also  large  settlements  lately  planted  in  various 
parts,  particularly  in  North  and  South  Carolina,  where  multitudes 
are  extremely  anxious  for  the  ministrations  of  the  gospel,  but  who 
are  not  formed  into  congregations  and  regularly  organized  for  want 
of  ministers."  These  numerous  calls  the  Synod  state  they  are 
utterly  unable  to  satisfy,  and  that  their  only  hope  of  being  able  to 
meet  these  demands  is  founded  on  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  upon 
which  the  Presbyterians  in  the  six  colonies  above  mentioned  must 
depend.  "  Your  petitioners,  therefore,"  say  the  Synod,  "  most  ear- 
nestly pray  that  this  very  reverend  assembly  would  afford  the  said 
college  all  the  countenance  and  assistance  in  their  power.  The 
young  daughter  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  helpless  and  exposed 
in  this  foreign  land,  cries  to  her  tender  and  powerful  parent  for 
relief.  The  cries  of  ministers  oppressed  with  labours,  and  of  con- 
gregations famishing  for  want  of  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word, 
implore  assistance.  And  were  the  poor  Indian  savages  sensible  of 
their  own  case,  they  would  join  in  the  cry  and  beg  for  more  mis- 
sionaries to  be  sent  to  propagate  the  religion  of  Jesus  among 
them."*  As  Mr.  Tennent  and  Mr.  Davies  were  not  the  agents  of 
the  Synod,  they  made  no  report  to  that  body  of  the  success  of  their 
mission.  That  it  was,  however,  by  no  means  inconsiderable,  may 
be  inferred  not  only  from  the  vote  of  thanks  rendered  to  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  for  their  assistance, f  but  from  the  address  of  the 
trustees  to  Governor  Belcher,  in  which  they  said  that  the  contri- 
butions obtained  from  England  and  Scotland  had  "amply  enabled 
them  to  erect  a  convenient  edifice  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
students,  and  to  lay  a  foundation  for  a  fund  for  the  support  of  the 
necessary  instructers."  Of  the  sums  received  by  Messrs.  Tennent 
and  Davies,  there  were  X307  sterling  given  for  the  education  of 

*  Minutes,  Appendix,  pp.  12 — 18.  f  Dr.  Green's  History,  p.  3(17. 


244  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

indigent  young  men  for  the  ministry,  the  interest  only  of  which  was 
to  be  used  ;  and  the  further  sum  of  <£50,  the  principal  of  which 
was  to  be  applied  to  the  same  purpose.  This  money  was  given  to 
the  trustees  of  the  college,  the  Synod  having  the  right  to  examine 
and  select  the  young  men  who  were  to  receive  the  benefit  of  it.* 
The  Synod  had,  at  an  earlier  date,  (1751,)  recommended  "an 
annual  collection  for  the  support  of  young  students  whose  circum- 
stances rendered  them  unable  to  maintain  themselves  at  learning, 
and  for  other  charitable  purposes. "f 

The  facts  above  detailed  sufficiently  prove  the  intimate  connec- 
tion between  the  Synod  and  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  and  show 
that  the  Synod  of  New  York  was  not  less  zealous  in  the  cause  of 
learning,  than  that  of  Philadelphia. 

It  has  been  proved  in  an  earlier  chapter  of  this  work, J  that  the 
Synod  of  New  York  adopted  the  same  standard  of  doctrine  as  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  and  that  there  was  no  dispute  between  the 
two  bodies  as  to  that  point.  With  regard  to  their  form  of  govern- 
ment, it  was  no  less  strictly  Presbyterian  than  that  of  the  other 
Synod.  The  Directory  was  as  much  the  constitution  of  the  one 
body  as  it  was  of  the  other. §  In  the  address  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  just  quoted,  the  Synod  de- 
clare they  had  adopted  her  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  dis- 
cipline ;  a  declaration  which  admits  but  of  one  interpretation.  In 
1751,  the  following  minute  was  adopted  on  this  subject :  "  The 
Synod  being  informed  of  certain  misrepresentations  concerning  the 
constitution,  order,  and  discipline  of  our  churches,  industriously 
spread  by  some  of  the  members  of  the  Dutch  congregations  inter- 
spersed among,  or  bordering  upon  us,  with  design  to  prevent  occa- 
sional or  constant  communion  of  their  members  with  our  churches ; 
to  obviate  all  such  misrepresentations,  and  to  cultivate  a  good 
understanding  between  us  and  our  brethren  of  the  Dutch  churches, 
we  do  hereby  declare  and  testify  our  constitution,  order,  and  dis- 
cipline, to  be  in  harmony  with  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland. 

*  Minutes,  pp.  81,  85.  f   Ibid.  p.  33. 

X  See  Chapter  III.  p.  172,  ct  seq. 

\  See  on  the  point  also,  Chapter  III.,  p.  172,  and  Chapter  V.,  pp.  163,  199. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  245 

The  Westminster  Confessions,  Catechisms,  and  Directory,  for  pub- 
lic worship  and  church  government,  adopted  by  them,  are  in  like 
manner  received  and  adopted  by  us.  We  declare  ourselves  united 
with  that  church  in  the  same  faith,  order,  and  discipline.  Its 
approbation  and  countenance  we  have  abundant  testimonies  of. 
They,  as  brethren,  receive  us,  and  their  members  we,  as  oppor- 
tunity offers,  receive  as  ours.  And  as  the  Church  of  Scotland  and 
the  Reformed  churches  abroad,  agreeable  to  the  Geneva  platform, 
hold  a  ready  and  free  communion  with  each  other,  so  we  desire  the 
same  with  our  brethren  of  the  Dutch  and  French  churches  inter- 
spersed amongst  and  bordering  upon  us."* 

Mr.  Davies,  in  his  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  says:  "If  I 
am  prejudiced  in  favour  of  any  church,  my  Lord,  it  is  of  that 
established  in  Scotland ;  of  which  I  am  a  member,  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  Established  Church  in  Virginia  is  the  Church  of 
England. "f  As  all  the  ministers  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
country  received,  at  that  day,  ordination  from  the  English  bishops, 
and  were  under  the  episcopal  supervision  of  the  Bishop  of  London, 
the  above  declaration  certainly  imports  a  most  intimate  agreement 
and  fellowship  between  our  church  and  that  of  Scotland. 

In  order,  however,  to  illustrate  the  true  character  of  this  interest- 
ing portion  of  our  church,  it  will  be  necessary  to  refer  to  some  of 
their  ecclesiastical  acts.  The  Synod  exercised  a  general  super- 
visory and  governing  power  over  the  congregations  and  presby- 
teries ;  and  for  this  purpose  revised  the  records  of  inferior  judica- 
tories, and  received  from  them  appeals  and  references.  That  this 
examination  of  the  records  was  a  proper  judicial  inspection,  is  evi- 
dent from  such  minutes  as  the  following  :  "  The  New  York  Presby- 
tery book  brought,  revised,  and  approved,  except  a  paragraph  on 
page  149,  on  which  the  Synod  has  not  light  to  determine."! 

The  cases  of  reference  of  judicial  matters  to  the  Synod  for  deci- 
sion are  very  numerous.  In  1750,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Bruns- 
wick referred  the  case  of  the  congregation  of  Tehicken,  or  Tini- 
cum.     It  appears  that  the  people  were  divided  in  opinion  as  to  the 

*  Minutes,  p.  33.    Appendix,  p.  11.  f  Princeton  Review,  April,  1840. 

t  Minutes,  p.  133. 


246  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

proper  location  of  their  place  of  worship,  and  therefore  agreed  to 
decide  the  matter  by  lot.  The  disappointed  party,  however,  refused 
to  abide  by  the  decision,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  unfairly 
obtained.  The  Synod  censured  both  parties  for  resorting  to  the 
lot ;  but  as,  in  their  judgment,  it  had  been  fairly  cast,  they  decided 
that  the  recusants  had  acted  very  sinfully  in  refusing  to  abide  by 
it,  and  therefore  "  ordered  that  a  solemn  admonition  be  adminis- 
tered unto  them  by  Mr.  Pemberton,  in  the  name  of  the  Synod, 
which  was  accordingly  done."* 

In  1752,  a  reference  was  brought  in  from  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  relating  to  the  congregation  in  that  city  ;  "  and  the 
plea  of  all  parties  having  been  heard,"  the  Synod  came  to  the  fol- 
lowing conclusions,  viz.  : 

"1.  That  the  building,  grounds,  &c.  conveyed  from  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  to  the  Presbyterian  Society 
in  New  York,  belong  to  Presbyterians  without  distinction  of  name 
or  nation,  who  conform  to  the  general  plan  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, as  practised  by  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

"  2.  That  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Presbyterian  plan  of 
government,  nor  with  the  institution  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  trustees,  or  a  committee  chosen  by  the  congregation,  should 
have  the  disposal  and  management  of  the  public  money  raised  by 
the  said  congregation,  to  the  uses  for  which  it  was  designed ;  pro- 
vided they  leave  in  the  hands,  and  to  the  management  of  the  dea- 
cons, what  is  collected  for  the  Lord's  table,  and  the  poor.  And 
that  ministers  of  the  gospel,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  have  no  right 
to  sit  with,  and  preside  over,  such  trustees  or  committee. 

"  3.  That  it  appears  to  the  Synod,  that  the  trustees  of  said 
church  have  faithfully  discharged  the  trust  reposed  in  them,  with 
respect  to  its  temporalities,  much  to  its  advantage. 

"4.  That  as  to  the  articles  of  complaint  brought  against  Mr. 
Gumming,  it  appears  to  the  Synod,  that  he  has  been  necessarily 
hindered  from  performing  his  part  in  public  service,  by  his  low 
state  of  health,  but  they  judge  it  his  duty  to  discharge  it  accord- 
inc  to  his  call  when  his  health  will  admit,  and  when  he  is  disabled, 

*  Minutes,  p.  33. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  247 

he  should  desire  Mr.  Pemberton  to  officiate  in  his  room.  That  his 
insisting  on  a  right  to  sit  with  the  trustees  in  their  conventions 
about  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  congregation,  was  not  a  violation 
of  his  ordination  vows,  which  respect  only  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try, although  they  judge  he  acted  imprudently  in  so  doing.  That 
he  is  to  be  commended  for  insisting  on  persons  praying  in  their 
families  who  present  their  children  for  baptism ;  but  inasmuch  as 
it  appears  expedient  that  the  same  form  of  covenanting  should  be 
used  in  the  same  church,  the  Synod  do  therefore  recommend  it  to 
Mr.  Pemberton  and  Mr.  Cumming  to  consult  with  the  committee 
hereafter  to  be  mentioned,  about  a  form  that  they  can  both  agree 
in. 

"  5.  That  the  church  proceed  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  the  choice 
of  elders  to  join  with  their  ministers  in  the  government  and  disci- 
pline of  the  church,  and  that  the  committee  hereafter  to  be  ap- 
pointed, do  nominate  the  persons  to  be  chosen,  and  determine  the 
number. 

"  6.  That  as  to  the  methods  taken  to  introduce  a  new  version  of 
the  Psalms  in  public  worship,  the  Synod  judge  it  to  be  disorderly 
and  always  to  be  discountenanced,  when  the  parties  in  matters  in 
debate  in  a  church  do  carry  about  private  subscriptions. 

"  7.  That  as  to  the  introduction  of  a  new  version  of  the  Psalms, 
the  Synod  hath  not  light  at  present  to  determine,  but  do  empower 
the  committee  to  recommend  Dr.  Watts'  version,  if  upon  observa- 
tion of  circumstances,  they  think  it  proper. 

"  And  the  Synod  do  appoint  the  Reverend  Messrs.  Samuel  Da- 
vies,  Samuel  Finley,  and  Charles  Beatty,  to  be  a  committee  to  go 
immediately  to  New  York,  and  direct  and  assist  the  Presbyterian 
congregation  of  New  York  in  such  affairs  as  may  contribute  to 
their  peace  and  edification."* 

*  Minutes,  p.  43-46.  It  has  already  been  shown,  chap.  I.  p.  52,  that  the 
Presbyterian  congregation  in  New  York  was  a  regularly  organized  church 
composed  principally  of  Scotch  Presbyterians,  and  constantly  called  the 
Scotch  church.  A  vei-y  influential  portion  of  its  members,  however,  were  of 
English  origin,  who  differed  in  their  habits  and  preferences  from  their  Scotch 
brethren.     This  gave  rise  to  constant  difficulty  about  Psalmody,  the  mode  of 


248  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

This  committee  met,  agreeably  to  appointment,  and  executed 
their  somewhat  extraordinary  mission  in  selecting  and  nominating 
two  elders,  but  decided  that  it  was  not  expedient  "judicially  to 
recommend  a  change  in  the  version  of  the  Psalms,  lest  the  ani- 
mosities in  the  congregation  should  be  the  more  inflamed."* 

managing  their  secular  affairs,  and  the  usages  of  public  worship.  The  pamph- 
let entitled,  "  The  case  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  city  of 
New  York,"  referred  to  in  a  previous  chapter,  throws  a  clear  light  on  the 
original  character  of  the  church,  and  indirectly  upon  the  Synod  with  which 
it  was  connected.  The  object  of  the  pamphlet  is  to  give  an  account  of  the 
several  attempts  made  to  obtain  a  charter,  and  of  the  opposition  of  the  Epis- 
copalians, by  which  these  efforts  were  rendered  unsuccessful. 

The  writers  claim,  "  that  all  protestant  denominations  in  the  colonies,  are, 
in  the  eye  of  the  law,  upon  a  level,"  and  that  this  was  "  the  necessary  conse- 
quence of  removing  to  a  distant  country,  where  no  religious  establishment  is 
set  up."  It  was  on  this  assumption  the  colonies  were  settled.  The  granting 
of  charters,  therefore,  to  the  Dutch  and  Episcopalian  churches,  was  a  matter 
of  justice  and  not  of  favour.  "  What  shall  we  say  then,"  it  is  asked,  "  to  the 
denial  of  such  charters  to  the  dispersions  of  the  church  of  Scotland  ?"  The 
first  application  was  made  in  1720,  in  the  name  of  "the  minister,  elders,  and 
deacons  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  New  York."  A  committee  of  council 
to  whom  this  application  was  referred,  reported  in  favour  of  it;  "but  the 
board,  to  gratify  the  unexpected  and  illiberal  jealousy  of  the  Episcopalians," 
desisted  from  all  proceedings  upon  it.  "  The  Presbyterians  soon  after  re- 
newed their  application,  and  the  Episcopalians  their  unreasonable  opposition." 
The  petition  was,  at  their  suggestion,  referred  to  the  authorities  in  England. 
Though  made  in  September,  1720,  it  was  not  sent  home  until  1724.  The 
Lords  of  Trade  consulted  counsellor  West,  afterwards  Lord  Chancellor  of 
Ireland,  who  gave  his  opinion  in  these  words :  "Upon  consideration  of  the 
several  acts  of  uniformity  that  have  passed  in  Great  Britain,  I  am  of  opinion 
that  they  do  not  extend  to  New  York ;  and  consequently  an  act  of  toleration 
is  of  no  use  in  that  province ;  and  therefore  as  there  is  no  provincial  act  of 
uniformity  according  to  the  church  of  England,  I  am  of  opinion  that  by  law 
such  patent  of  incorporation  may  be  granted  as  by  the  petition  is  desired." 
Still  no  charter  was  granted.  "Notwithstanding  all  opposition,  the  Scotch 
church  flourished  under  the  long  and  laborious  ministry  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Pemberton,  who  settled  here  in  1727."  In  1759,  a  third  application  was 
made,  with  no  better  success.  A  fourth  attempt  was  made  in  1766,  when  it 
was  thought  best,  "  to  lay  the  case  of  this  distant  dispersion  of  the  church  of 
Scotland  before  his  majesty."     When  the  matter  came  up  for  consideration, 

*  Minutes,  p.  51. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  249 

Sometimes  the  affairs  of  a  congregation  were  brought  before  the 
Synod  without  the  intervention  of  a  presbytery.  Thus  in  1753, 
Mr.  Pemberton  and  others  of  the  congregation  of  New  York,  made 
a  representation  of  the  painful  divisions  existing  in  that  church, 

"  the  bishop  of  London  appeared  twice  before  the  commissioners  of  trade  and 
plantation,  in  opposition  to  the  petition,"  which  was  finally  rejected.  The 
grounds  on  which  these  applications  were  opposed,  gave  more  just  offence 
than  their  rejection  itself.  It  was  either  assumed  that  the  acts  of  uniformity 
were  in  force  in  this  country,  or  that  the  question  respecting  their  obligation 
must  be  previously  determined  by  the  highest  authority,  "lest  such  incorpo- 
rations might  be  considered  as  repugnant  to  the  provisions  of  those  statutes.'' 
Such  was  the  language  of  the  Governor's  council  on  the  subject;  who  still 
more  plainly  indicate  their  principles  by  saying  in  the  same  document,  that 
"  except  the  charters  granted  to  the  church  of  England,  all  the  instances  of 
such  incorporations  within  this  province,  (four  only  in  number,)  are  confined 
to  the  Dutch,  whose  claims  to  this  distinction  are,  the  committee  apprehend, 
grounded  on  one  of  the  articles  of  capitulation,  on  the  surrender  of  the  colony 
in  1664,  by  which  it  is  declared,  that  the  Dutch  here,  shall  enjoy  the  liberty 
of  their  consciences  in  divine  worship  and  church  discipline."  Thus  it 
appears  that  the  Dutch  owed  their  liberty  of  conscience  to  an  article  of  capi- 
tulation, and  that  those  who  could  plead  no  such  ground  of  distinction,  were 
not  entitled  to  such  liberty.  Presbyterians  could  not  avoid  drawing  the  infer- 
ence from  such  declarations,  that  Episcopalians  in  this  country  and  in  Eng- 
land were  desirous  of  giving  full  force  to  the  acts  of  uniformity.  On  what 
other  ground  was  the  distinction  made  between  the  two  denominations? 
Why  were  charters  granted  without  hesitation  or  delay  to  Episcopal  churches 
and  refused  to  Presbyterian  ones  ?  Why  did  the  lords  of  trade  say,  that  it 
was  inexpedient  to  grant  the  latter  "  any  further  privileges  or  immunities 
than  they  are  entitled  to  by  the  laws  of  toleration  ?"  The  toleration  act  pre- 
supposed the  act  of  uniformity.  If  Presbyterians  owed  their  liberty  of  con- 
science in  the  colonies  to  the  former,  it  was  because  the  latter  was  in  force 
in  the  colonies.  Thus  the  men  who  had  fled  from  the  oppression  of  those 
acts  in  their  own  country,  found  their  authority  asserted  in  the  place  of  their 
asylum.  What  rendered  this  case  the  harder  was,  that  the  Dutch  and  English 
Presbyterians  in  the  province  of  New  York  were  "  a  great  majority  of  the 
whole  number  of  its  inhabitants."  This  is  asserted  in  the  petition  for  a 
charter,  made  in  1766,  and  is  virtually  admitted  in  the  reply  to  it.  Yet  the 
minority  had  not  only  acts  of  incorporation,  but  public  property  granted  to 
them  to  a  large  amount.  "At  this  very  juncture,"  says  the  pamphlet,  (1773) 
"  the  society  for  propagating  the  gospel,  though  restrained  from  taking  real 
estates  at  home,  are  asking  for  grants  of  crown  lands  in  America  in  mort- 


250  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  requested  the  intervention  of  the  Synod.  Whereupon  William 
Tennent,  Samuel  Davies,  Aaron  Burr,  Caleb  Smith,  David  Bost- 
wick,  Elihu  Spencer,  Richard  Treat,  Charles  Beatty,  and  John 
Rodgers,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  at  New  York,  "  with 

main,  for  themselves  and  the  Episcopal  churches,  to  the  amount  of  many 
hundred  thousands  of  acres.  In  some  instances  they  have  been  gratified 
already,  and  in  one  with  circumstances  too  singular  to  be  unnoticed.  All  the 
world  knows  the  Episcopal  church  of  the  city  of  New  York  to  be  one  of  the 
richest  ecclesiastical  corporations  in  the  king's  dominions.  They  own  a  very 
large  portion  of  the  very  metropolis.  Sixty  odd  acres  divided  into  small  lots 
will  produce,  when  the  present  leases  expire,  a  revenue  fit  for  a  popish  abbey. 
They  had  first  a  lease  of  it  from  the  crown,  which  was  vacated  by  a  law  pro- 
cured in  consequence  of  orders  from  home.  Impatient  under  this  loss,  a 
project  was  devised  to  repeal  the  vacating  act,  and  re  grant  it  in  fee,  before 
the  repealing  act  could  be  known  on  the  other  side  of  the  water.  My  Lord 
Cornbury  risked  the  royal  displeasure,  and  sacrificed  the  crown  to  the  church. 
Queen  Anne  repealed  the  repealing,  and  confirmed  the  vacating  act ;  but  the 

church  was  already  possessed  of  the  patent They  have  lately  added 

to  their  wealth  a  township  of  no  less  than  25,000  acres,  out  of  the  crown 
lands  in  the  county  of  Gloucester,  ....  applied  for  by,  and  granted  to  Na- 
thaniel Marston  and  others  as  private  planters ;  though  they  took  the  estate 
not  for  themselves,  but  for  the  incorporated  churches  of  which  they  were 
ofiicers  and  members.  Chargeable  with  such  practices,  is  not  their  opposing 
the  naked  incorporation  of  the  Scotch  churches,  (who  ask  for  no  estate  or 
lands,)  the  most  matchless  effrontery?  ....  What  marvel  then  that  the 
project  of  erecting  Episcopacy  in  America,  excites  such  general  apprehension 
in  the  rest  of  the  American  churches  1"  This  assumption,  therefore,  that  the 
English  ecclesiastical  laws  were  of  force  in  this  country,  and  that  the  vast 
majority  of  the  people  were  only  tolerated,  was  a  real  grievance.  It  was 
the  same  assumption,  viz. :  that  America  was  a  part  of  the  realm  of  Great 
Britain,  and  was  subject  to  the  acts  of  parliament  even  in  matters  of  taxation, 
that  caused  the  revolution,  and  formed  its  justification. 

The  character  of  the  church  in  New  York  is  clearly  set  forth  in  their  seve- 
ral petitions  for  a  charter.  They  frequently  call  themselves  "  a  dispersion  of 
the  church  of  Scotland  ;"  and  in  the  petition  presented  in  1720,  prayed  to  be 
incorporated  for  the  exercise  of  their  religion  "in  its  true  doctrine,  discipline, 
and  worship,  according  to  the  rules  and  methods  of  the  established  church  of 
North  Britain."  That  presented  in  1766,  was  in  the  name  of  "  John  Rodgers 
and  Joseph  Treat,  the  present  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  church  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  according  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms,  and 
Directory,  agreeable  to  the  established  church  of  Scotland,"  and  of  the  elders, 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  251 

full  power  and  authority  to  transact  such  things  with  respect  to 
said  congregation,  as  they  shall  judge  necessary  for  the  healing  of 
its  divisions,  and  the  best  interests  of  religion  therein."* 

When  this  committee  met,  a  paper  containing  a  statement  of  the 
grievances  of  which  a  part  of  the  congregation  complained,  waa 
laid  before  them,  on  which  they  gave  the  following  judgment : 

"  1.  As  to  the  first  article  complaining  of  the  neglect  of  minis- 
terial visits,  and  examining  into  the  lives  and  conversation  of  the 
people ;  it  appears  from  the  representation  made  by  Mr.  Pember- 
ton,  that  he  has  made  conscience  of  his  duty  in  these  respects, 
though  of  late  he  has,  by  reason  of  the  divisions  subsisting  among 
his  people,  desisted  from  it :  we  therefore  earnestly  recommend  his 
persisting  in  that  important  part  of  his  ministerial  labours ;  and 
that  he  be  not  discouraged  by  any  disagreeable  appearances  among 
them. 

"2.  As  to  the  third  article  against  the  session  concerning  the 
new  version  of  the  Psalms,  the  committee  cannot  think  it  regular 

deacons,  and  trustees.  In  the  copy  of  the  charter  which  they  sent  to  Eng- 
land to  be  executed  and  returned,  they  requested  the  king  to  say :  "  We  have 
thought  fit  to  favour  the  pious  purposes  of  our  said  loving  subjects,  and  to 
secure  to  them,  their  successors,  and  others  joining  with  them  of  the  same 
religious  persuasion,  the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  all  their  civil  and 
religious  rights,  and  to  preserve  to  them  and  their  successors,  the  liberty  of 
worshipping  God  according  to  their  consciences,  and  the  usages  of  those 
Presbyterian  churches  which  have  adopted  and  do  regulate  themselves  by, 
and  conform  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms,  and  Direc- 
tory." And  again :  "  We  do  also  for  us,  our  heirs,  and  successors,  ordain 
and  grant  that  the  said  ministers,  elders,  deacons,  and  trustees,  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  of  the  city  of  New  York,  according  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  Catechisms,  and  Directory,  in  communion  with  the  church  of 
Scotland,  and  their  successors  for  ever,  by  these  presents,  that  this  our  grant 
shall  be  firm,  good,  and  effectual,  &c.  &c."  As  all  this  was  said  by  men 
who  had  always  belonged  to  the  New-side  Synod,  and  as  the  Westminster 
Directory  related  not  merely  to  a  single  congregation,  but  to  Presbyteries 
and  Synods,  it  shows  very  clearly  that  they  thought  their  system  of  church 
government  was  in  harmony  with  that  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  of  which 
they  called  themselves  a  dispersion,  and  with  which  they  professed  to  be  in 
communion.  *  Minutes,  p.  58. 


252  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

for  the  ministers  and  elders  to  introduce  a  new  version,  without  the 
express  consent  and  approbation  of  the  majority  of  the  congrega- 
tion ;  yet  since  Dr.  Watts'  version  is  introduced  into  this  church, 
and  is  well  adapted  for  Christian  worship,  and  received  by  many 
Presbyterian  congregations  both  in  America  and  Great  Britain  ; 
they  cannot  but  judge  it  best  for  the  well-being  of  the  congrega- 
tion, under  their  present  circumstances,  that  they  should  be  con- 
tinued. 

"  3.  As  to  the  fourth  article,  complaining  of  the  neglect  of  the 
Westminster  Confession,  and  not  recommending  of  it  in  baptism, 
the  committee  conceive  that  the  vote  of  the  Synod,  as  to  the  latter, 
is  sufficient ;  and  Mr.  Pemberton's  declaring  his  high  approbation 
of  said  Confession,  and  publicly  teaching  the  Westminster  Cate- 
chisms, ought  to  be  satisfying  to  all. 

"4.  As  to  praying  at  the  burial  of  the  dead,  since  it  is  not  prac- 
tised but  at  the  request  of  those  concerned,  and  all  are  left  at 
liberty  to  request  it  or  not,  the  committee  think  it  no  just  matter 
of  offence,  especially  as  it  is  frequently  practised  by  the  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  in  this  country,  and  the  reasons  for  which  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  in  the  early  times  of  the  reformation  from  popery, 
prohibited  it,  are  now  evidently  ceased. 

"  5.  As  to  singing  anthems,  &c,  though  the  committee  cannot 
disapprove  of  them  at  proper  seasons,  yet  lest  it  should  tend  to 
take  off  the  minds  of  the  people  from  the  important  things  which 
they  have  heard  in  the  house  of  God,  and  as  it  seems  matter  of 
conscience  to  some,  the  committee  judge  it  advisable  to  forbear  the 
practice  on  the  Lord's  day. 

"  6.  As  to  the  article  complaining  of  injurious  and  contempt- 
uous treatment,  the  committee  are  much  grieved  to  find  there  has 
been  so  much  of  it  on  both  sides  during  the  unhappy  disputes  that 
have  subsisted  among  them,  and  do  earnestly  recommend  mutual 
forgiveness,  forbearance,  and  moderation  towards  one  another,  as 
the  most  likely  method  to  promote  peace  and  unanimity  among 
them."* 

This  minute  throws  no  little  light  upon  the  causes  of  the  diffi* 
*  Minutes,  p.  66. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  263 

culties  in  that  congregation.  It  shows  that  one  portion  of  the  peo- 
ple, with  characteristic  pertinacity  and  scrupulousness,  were  for 
adhering  to  "  the  rules  and  methods"  of  that  church  of  which  they 
all  professed  to  be  a  "dispersion;"  while  another  portion  treated 
these  scruples  with  very  little  forbearance.  The  version  of  the 
Psalms  was  changed  without  the  consent  of  the  people,  and  even 
anthems  were  sung  after  sermon  on  the  Sabbath.  They  might  as 
well  have  said  mass,  and  expect  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  of  that 
day  to  join  in  the  service.  If  they  wished  to  drive  the  Scotch 
from  "the  Scotch  church,"  this  was  certainly  the  proper  method 
to  do  it,  but  it  was  not  the  way  to  obtain  peace.  With  our  imper- 
fect knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  it  is  impossible  to  judge  on 
which  party  the  blame  should  principally  be  laid,  but  it  appears 
from  the  above  minute,  that  the  rulers  of  the  congregation  did  not 
act  on  the  principles  so  strenuously  inculcated  by  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles :  "  If  thy  brother  be  grieved  with  thy  meat,  now  walkest 
thou  not  charitably.  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for  whom 
Christ  died." 

After  the  committee  had  rendered  the  decision  above  recorded, 
Messrs.  Pemberton  and  dimming  requested  to  be  dismissed  from 
their  pastoral  relation  to  the  church.  The  former  assigned  as  the 
grounds  of  his  request  the  divisions  among  the  people,  the  appear- 
ance of  dissatisfaction  with  himself,  and  the  little  prospect  of  his 
being  useful  among  them  ;  the  latter  urged  particularly  the  low 
state  of  his  health.  A  number  of  gentlemen,  in  behalf  of  others, 
earnestly  remonstrated  against  the  removal  of  Mr.  Pemberton,  and 
the  committee  decided  "  he  should  be  allowed  a  month's  trial ;  and 
if,  upon  a  faithful  .endeavour  to  heal  the  divisions,  and  serve  the 
interests  of  Christ's  kingdom  among  them,  he  finds  all  his  attempts 
vain,  and  still  continues  his  desire  of  a  dismission,  they  judge  it 
best  he  should  be  left  at  liberty  to  remove  from,  or  abide  with  them, 
as  he  shall  think  most  consistent  with  his  duty.  As  to  Mr.  Cum- 
ming, as  no  reasons  have  been  offered  to  the  committee  against  his 
dismission,  the  committee  do  judge  from  what  has  appeared  to  them, 
and  for  the  reasons  urged  by  him,  that  his  pastoral  relation  to  the 
Presbyterian  congregation  in  New  York  should  be  dissolved,  and  it 


254  P  11  E  S  B  Y  T  E  R  I  A  N     CHURCH 

is  dissolved  accordingly.  It  is  with  pleasure  the  committee  observe 
that  there  have  been  no  objections  against  Mr.  Cumming's  moral 
conduct  or  ministerial  labours ;  they  do,  therefore,  freely  recom- 
mend him,  if  God  shall  please  to  restore  his  health,  to  any  Chris- 
tian congregation  where  Divine  Providence  may  call  him,  as  a  man 
of  eminent  ministerial  gifts  and  abilities,  and  one  whom  they 
think  in  many  respects  fitted  for  special  service  in  the  church  of 
Christ."* 

The  affairs  of  this  congregation  were  again  brought  before  the 
Synod  in  1755,  by  a  reference  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
concerning  the  removal  of  Mr.  Bostwick  from  Jamaica  to  the  church 
in  New  York,  and  settling  the  order  and  discipline  of  that  church, 
which,  after  much  consideration,  was  referred  to  a  committee  to 
draw  up  the  judgment  of  the  Synod  thereon.  This  judgment  was 
to  the  following  effect:  1.  That  the  Synod  were  still  of  the  opinion 
formerly  expressed,  that  the  trustees  had  faithfully  performed  their 
duty  ;  but  as  the  congregation  were  divided  in  sentiment  as  to  the 
propriety  of  having  such  a  board,  and  had  agreed  not  to  elect  them 
again  in  that  form,  the  Synod  approve  of  that  agreement,  and 
judged  that  if  the  congregation  chose  to  have  a  committee  to  man- 
age their  secular  affairs,  that  committee  should  hereafter  be  chosen 
by  the  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons,  with  the  consent  of  the  peo- 
ple. 2.  That  as  a  number  of  the  congregation  were  much  dissatis- 
fied with  the  constant  use  of  Dr.  Watts'  Psalms,  "  the  Synod 
determined  that  the  Scotch  version  be  used  equally  with  the  other 
in  the  stated  public  worship  on  the  Lord's  day."  3.  That  previ- 
ously to  the  administration  of  baptism,  the  minister  shall  inquire 
into  the  doctrinal  knowledge  and  regularity  of  life  of  the  parents, 
and  exhort  them  to  instruct  their  children  in  the  doctrines  and  pre- 
cepts of  Christianity  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  comprised 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  which  he  shall 
recommend  unto  them.  4.  That  as  complaint  had  been  made  of  a 
number  assuming  the  name  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  Society,  it 
shall  be  deemed  irregular  and  censurable  for  a  part  of  the  conore- 
gation  to  form  a  party,  and  to  consider  themselves  a  society  distinct 
*  Minutes,  pp.  68-70. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  255 

from  the  rest.  5.  That  as  to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Bostwick,  the 
people  of  Jamaica  not  having  been  heard  on  that  affair,  the  Synod 
were  not  prepared  to  decide,  but  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  at 
Jamaica  and  decide  the  question.*  That  committee  met  accordingly, 
October  29,  1755,  but  "  not  having  light  to  come  to  a  full  determi- 
nation of  the  affair,"  referred  it  to  the  commissioner  of  the 
Synod  ;  who,  after  mature  deliberation,  decided  in  favour  of  his 
removal,  f 

The  long-continued  difficulties  in  the  church  in  New  York,  were 
presented  for  the  last  time  to  the  Synod  in  1756.  A  paper  was 
read  from  several  members  of  the  congregation,  complaining  of 
the  grievances  under  which  they  supposed  themselves  to  suffer. 
The  Synod,  after  severely  censuring  the  disrespectful  terms  in 
which  that  paper  was  couched,  informed  the  complainants,  "  that, 
by  adopting  the  Westminster  Confession,  we  only  intended  receiv- 
ing it  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy  in  this  church ;  and  it  is  the  order  of 
this  Synod  that  all  who  are  licensed  to  preach  the  gospel,  or  to 
become  members  of  any  presbytery  within  our  bounds,  shall  receive 
the  same  as  the  confession  of  their  faith  according  to  our  consti- 
tuting act,  which  we  see  no  reason  to  repeal. 

"  That  as  to  the  singing  of  Dr.  Watts'  version  of  the  Psalms, 
though  the  conduct  of  the  congregation  in  adhering  to  them  con- 
trary to  synodical  appointment,  without  waiting  for  an  opportunity 
to  obtain  a  repeal  of  the  said  appointment,  was  not  regular,  yet  as 
the  said  Psalms  are  orthodox,  and  as  no  particular  version  is  in- 
spired, and  as  the  using  them  is  earnestly  desired  by  a  great 
majority  of  the  congregation,  contrary  to  the  view  we  had  of  the 
case  last  year,  the  Synod  for  the  sake  of  their  peace  do  permit  the 
use  of  the  said  version  unto  them  ;  and  determine  that  this  shall 
be  finally  decisive  in  this  affair."  They  then  declare  that  those 
who  refused  to  pay  their  pew-rents  acted  disorderly,  and  forfeited 
their  pews;  that  reading  in  the  desk  was  "a  mere  indifferency," 
not  contrary  to  any  divine  rule,  or  to  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
and  therefore  not  to  be  altered  by  authority.  As  to  the  other 
points  brought  forward  in  the  paper,  they  had  been  already  de- 
cided, to  which  decisions  the  Synod  adhered. J 

*  Minutes,  pp.  85-87.  f  Ibid-  PP- 103-107.  J  Ibid.  pp.  112-114. 


256  PRESBYTERIAN    CnURCH 

These  examples  may  be  deemed  sufficient  to  illustrate  the  con- 
trolling supervision  exercised  by  the  Synod  ;  and  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  they  exhibit  a  Presbyterianism  sufficiently  stringent. 
It  was  also  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  synodical  jurisdiction,  that 
this  body  received  and  formed  new  Presbyteries.  In  1749,  the 
Presbytery  of  Suffolk,  Long  Island,  was  received;  in  1751,  those 
members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  who  resided  in 
Philadelphia,  and  in  New  Jersey  to  the  southward  of  that  city, 
were  formed  into  a  new  Presbytery,  and  called  the  Presbytery  of 
Abington  ;*  in  1755,  "  the  Synod  appointed  the  Rev.  Samuel  Davies, 
John  Todd,  Alexander  Creaghead,  Robert  Henry,  John  Wright,  and 
John  Brown,  to  be  a  Presbytery,  under  the  name  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Hanover,  and  that  their  first  meeting  shall  be  in  Hanover, 
on  the  first  Wednesday  of  December  next,  and  that  Mr.  Davies 
open  the  said  Presbytery  with  a  sermon  ;  and  that  any  of  their 
members,  (i.  e.  of  the  Synod,)  settling  to  the  southward  and  west- 
ward of  Mr.  Hoge's  congregation,  shall  have  liberty  to  join  the 
said  Presbytery. ""J 

The  Synod  were  sometimes  called  upon  to  decide  questions  either 
in  tliesi,  or  with  reference  to  some  special  case.  Thus,  in  1752,  we 
find  the  following  record :  "  Whereas  a  certain  person  pretending 
at  Egg  Harbour  to  be  a  minister  regularly  ordained  among  Pres- 
byterians, and  under  that  character  baptised  some  adults  and 
infants,  and  it  appearing  to  the  Synod  that  his  pretences  were 
false,  having  at  that  time  no  license  or  ordination  ;  it  is  our  opinion 
that  all  the  gospel  ordinances  he  administered  under  that  false  and 
pretended  character,  are  null  and  invalid. "| 

In  1753,  "  it  being  moved  to  the  Synod  what  they  judge  neces- 
sary as  to  the  form  or  method  to  be  used  in  the  administration  of 
baptism,  the  Synod  do  refer  to  our  excellent  Directory  in  that  case. 
It  being  further  moved,  whether  a  church  session  hath  power  to 
introduce  a  new  version  of  the  Psalms  into  the  congregation  to 
which  they  belong,  without  the  consent  6"f  the  majority  of  the 
said  congregation,  it  was  voted  in  the  negative :  nemine  contra- 
dicente.,,% 

*  Minutes,  p.  35.  f  Ibid-  p.  80.  %  Ibid.  p.  42.  §  Ibid.  p.  59. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  257 

The  character  of  this  Synod  is  sufficiently  plain  from  its  own 
proceedings  ;  but  if  it  were  consistent  with  the  object  and  limits  of 
this  history  to  bring  into  view  the  action  of  the  several  Presby- 
teries within  its  bounds,  its  thorough  Presbyterianism  would  be  still 
more  apparent.  The  records  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick, 
for  example,  furnish  as  fair  a  specimen  of  regular  Presbyterian 
government  as  can  be  presented  by  those  of  any  Presbytery,  at 
any  period  in  the  history  of  our  church.  When  first  constituted, 
through  the  abundance  of  its  zeal,  it  paid  little  regard  to  geographi- 
cal limits,  and  would  receive  congregations,  or  supply  them  with 
preaching,  no  matter  to  what  Presbytery  they  properly  belonged. 
After  the  revival,  however,  it  became  lemarkably  scrupulous  on 
this  point ;  and  even  as  early  as  1743,  exhibited  a  very  commend- 
able degree  of  caution  in  this  matter.  This  is  illustrated  by  its 
conduct  in  reference  to  the  church  at  New  Milford,  in  Connecticut. 
In  the  month  of  April,  1743,  at  a  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, the  following  record  was  made  :  "  The  special  occasion  of 
the  present  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  is  an  application  made  to 
some  of  our  members,  some  time  past,  from  a  society  in  Milford,  in 
New  England,  by  their  commissioners,  desiring  the  Presbytery  to 
receive  them  under  their  care,  and  also  to  take  Mr.  Jacob  Johnson, 
a  candidate  for  the  ministry,  then  preaching  to  them,  under  trials, 
in  order  to  ordination  to  the  gospel  ministry  among  them ;  and 
accordingly  said  members  did  send  to  Mr.  Jacob  Johnson  as  pieces 
of  trial,  that  he  prepare  a  sermon  on  Rom.  viii.  14,  and  an  exe- 
gesis, in  Latin,  upon  this  question :  An  regimen  ecclesiae  presby- 
teriale  sit  Scripturae  et  rationi  congruum  ?  to  be  delivered  to  the 
Presbytery  at  this  time,  to  sit  upon  the  said  occasion.  Now  the 
Presbytery  being  met,  pursuant  to  the  aforementioned  occasion  and 
appointment,  Mr.  Jacob  Johnson,  together  with  Mr.  Benjamin  Fenn 
and  Mr.  George  Clerk,  commissioners  from  the  aforesaid  society  in 
Milford,  appeared  and  moved  the  Presbytery  to  proceed  in  their 
affair,  as  before  mentioned.  The  Presbytery  do  agree  to  take  the 
matter  under  consideration,  and  in  order  to  proceed  in  the  best 
and  clearest  manner  they  can,  resolve  to  inquire  in  the  first  place, 
whether  said  society  be  a  regular  society  capable  of  being  received 
VOL.  II. — 17 


258  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

under  their  care  and  direction  or  not.  And  after  proper  inquiry 
and  consideration  of  the  affair,  as  far  and  as  fully  as  at  present 
they  are  able,  the  Presbytery  doth  judge,  that  although  they  can- 
not presbyterially  judge  and  determine  any  thing  as  touching  the 
original  reasons  and  grounds  of  their  separation  from  the  established 
congregation  of  that  town,  not  having  sufficient  evidence  to  proceed 
upon  in  that  matter,  nor  does  the  Presbytery  think  that  matter 
immediately  to  lie  before  them,  yet  inasmuch  as  the  Presbytery 
find,  upon  the  verbal  relation  of  the  aforesaid  commissioners,  con- 
firmed by  several  papers  containing  the  narration  of  their  proceed- 
ings, that  said  society  is  now  a  separate  body  of  the  Presbyterian 
denomination,  constituted  agreeably  to,  and  under  protection  of 
the  laws  of  that  colony,  and  no  objections  against  the  present  pro- 
ceedings of  the  new-erected  society  being  offered  to  the  Presbytery 
by  the  old  congregation,  though  their  design  was  fully  known  to 
them,  the  Presbytery  therefore  cannot  see  any  just  reason  to  reject 
the  motion  and  request  made  to  them  by  the  said  newly-erected 
society  of  Milford,  do  unanimously  agree  to  take  the  said  society 
under  their  care  and  government,  and  do  the  best  they  can  for 
them  towards  their  settlement  with  a  minister ;  and  so  they  are 
prepared  to  take  the  trials  of  Mr.  Jacob  Johnson,  in  order  to  judge 
of  his  qualifications  for  the  sacred  office  of  the  ministry  among 
them."  The  Presbytery  then  proceeded  to  the  examination  of  Mr. 
Johnson,  and  after  having  made  some  progress,  they  determined  to 
stop,  and  resolved,  1.  That  the  newly-erected  Presbyterian  Society 
in  Milford  is  to  be  deemed  a  society  capable  to  call  and  receive  a 
minister  for  themselves.  2.  That  the  Presbytery  are  grieved  for 
the  breach  thereby  made  in  the  said  town.  3.  That  it  be  recom- 
mended to  the  said  society  to  seek  a  reconciliation  with  the  old 
society ;  and  that  the  Presbytery  do  not  proceed  to  the  ordination 
of  Mr.  Johnson,  until  these  further  steps  have  been  taken.  4.  That 
in  case  the  efforts  for  a  union  should  fail,  the  society  "be  allowed" 
to  call  and  settle  a  minister,  and  in  the  mean  time  to  have  supplies 
from  settled  ministers  and  approved  candidates.  5.  That  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Treat  visit  Milford,  and  gain  further  information,  and  make  a 
report  to  Presbytery.*     In  August  of  the  same  year,  a  call  was 

*  Minutes  of  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  pp.  45-7. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  259 

presented  from  that  congregation  for  Mr.  Treat,  but  his  removal 
being  opposed  by  commissioners  from  the  congregation  of  Abing- 
ton,  of  which  he  was  the  pastor,  the  Presbytery  decided  against  his 
acceptance  of  the  call.*  The  Presbytery,  however,  directed  Mr 
Samuel  Finley  to  visit  Milford,  "  with  allowance  that  he  preach  in 
other  places  thereabouts,  where  Providence  may  open  a  door  for 
him."t 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in  May,  1744,  it  is  stated,  "  An 
important  affair  was  brought  before  Presbytery  from  the  Presbyte- 
rian society  of  Milford,  New  England,  the  determining  of  which 
being  of  very  great  consequence,  and  the  conjunct  Presbytery, 
(i.  e.  the  united  Presbyteries  of  New  Brunswick  and  New  Castle,) 
being  now  convened,  the  Presbytery  think  it  not  best  to  proceed  in 
it,  but  to  refer  it  to  the  determination  of  the  conjunct  Presbytery 
at  their  present  meeting."!  What  this  affair  was,  or  what  was  done 
in  the  matter,  does  not  appear  from  the  records.  But  in  1747,  a 
call  from  Milford  was  presented  to  the  Presbytery  for  Mr.  Job 
Prudden,  and  accepted  by  him ;  whereupon  the  Presbytery,  after 
the  usual  examinations,  and  the  adoption  on  his  part  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  proceeded  to  his  ordi- 
nation.! 

This  Presbytery  was  not  less  circumspect  in  the  reception  of  new 
members.  In  October,  1743,  a  request  was  presented  from  the  con- 
gregation of  Hopewell,  for  permission  to  invite  the  famous  Mr. 
Davenport  to  preach  for  them,  with  a  view  to  his  settlement  among 
them.  "  The  Presbytery,  in  order  to  get  light  in  the  matter, 
thought  it  their  duty  to  discourse  with  Mr.  Davenport  about  several 
things  they  bad  heard  of  in  some  parts  of  his  conduct  in  times  past, 
which  they  could  not  approve  of,  and  were  pleased  to  hear  Mr. 
Davenport  declare  his  conviction  of,  and  humiliation  foi  some  things 
he  had  been  faulty  in,  although  there  be  others  which  he  cannot  as 
yet  see  and  condemn  which  the  Presbytery  do  disapprove  of. 
Whereupon  the  Presbytery  cannot  see  that  the  way  is  clear  for 
said  people  to  give  Mr.  Davenport  a  call  to  settle  among  them  ; 

*  Minutes  of  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  p.  52.  t  Ibid.  p.  55. 

X  Ibid.  p.  61.  I  Ibid.  pp.  93  and  95. 


260  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

nevertheless  that  as  (rod  has  begun  to  show  him  his  mistakes,  he 
may  be  pleased  to  go  on  in  that  way,  and  being  willing  to  use  all 
means  to  obtain  so  desirable  an  end,  the  Presbytery  do  permit  the 
said  people  to  improve  Mr.  Davenport  to  supply  them  until  the 
second  Wednesday  in  May  next,  to  see  what  may  be  further  done 
in  that  affair,  referring  it  to  the  conjunct  Presbytery,  then  to  meet 
at  Philadelphia,  to  approve  or  disapprove  of  this  our  conduct,  and 
to  proceed  in  regard  to  Mr.  Davenport  as  their  way  shall  be  made 
clear  to  them."*  He  was  not  received  as  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery until  1746,  when,  as  the  Presbytery  state,  "  having  satisfied 
us  of  his  consent  to  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  together  with  our  plan  of  government,  as  far 
as  he  had  inspected  into  the  same,"  he  was  admitted.  In  1748,  he 
was  dismissed  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  "  to  act  under  their 
direction,"  in  relation  to  a  call  which  he  had  received  to  Connecti- 
cut Farms. f  In  1753,  he  was  again  received  by  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Brunswick  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  in  order  to  his 
settlement  at  Hopewell.  A  committee  was  appointed  for  his  instal- 
lation, who  reported  that  owing  "to  the  manifest  negligence  of  the 
people,  they  could  not  proceed  in  that  affair ;  whereupon  the  Pres- 
bytery judged  the  conduct  of  the  said  people  to  be  highly  abusive 
both  to  the  Presbytery  and  Mr.  Davenport ;  but  said  people  have- 
ing  made  some  just  reflections  on  their  conduct,  and  again  present- 
ing a  call  to  Mr.  Davenport,  he,  after  some  consideration,  declared 
his  acceptance  of  said  call ;"  and  the  Presbytery,  "  in  consideration 
of  the  disappointment  and  damage  sustained  by  the  delay  of  the 
installation  of  Mr.  Davenport,  when  first  appointed,  through  the 
default  of  the  people  of  Hopewell  and  Maidenhead,  do  order  that 
the  said  people  advance  Mr.  Davenport's  salary  to  seventy  pounds 
per  annum  two  years  sooner  than  was  recommended  to  them  by  the 
last  Presbytery."|  His  situation  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
•7ery  agreeable,  as  in  1757,  a  petition  was  presented  for  his  remo- 
val, the  consideration  of  which  was  deferred  to  the  next  meeting, 
and  he  died  in  the  autumn  of  that  year  before  it  was  acted  upon. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  p.  58. 

t  Ibid.  p.  101.  t  Ibid.  pp.  114  and  119. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  261 

In  the  above  record  we  have  an  example  not  only  of  the  exercise 
of  the  usual  presbyterial  authority  over  a  congregation,  but  of 
something  beyond  it,  especially  in  the  order  to  increase  Mr.  Da- 
venport's salary.  This  was  a  matter  in  which  the  Presbytery 
often  interfered.  In  1750,  they  passed  a  standing  rule,  that  at 
least  once  a  year  they  would  "  inquire  of  the  elders  how  their 
respective  ministers  were  supported,  and  their  salaries  paid."*  If 
after  such  inquiry  the  people  were  found  deficient,  the  Presbytery 
censured  them,  and  "  ordered  them  to  give  information  to  the  next 
Presbytery"  what  they  had  done  to  secure  the  payment  of  the  pas- 
tor ;f  or  the  people  were  "  ordered  to  make  up  the  deficiency 
before  the  next  meeting  of  the  Presbytery.  "J 

The  Presbytery  also  assumed  the  right  of  granting  or  refusing 
liberty  to  one  or  more  members  of  one  congregation  to  join  another. 
Thus,  "  Mr.  Jacob  Reader,  a  member  of  the  congregation  of  Hope- 
well, made  a  request  that  for  the  sake  of  the  convenience  of  his 
family,  the  Presbytery  would  be  pleased  to  dismiss  him  from  the 
aforesaid  congregation,  that  he  may  join  with  Amwell.  And  the 
Presbytery,  taking  into  consideration  said  request,  judge  it  to  be 
reasonable,  and  grant  it."§  At  another  time  a  petition  from  a 
number  of  persons  "  to  be  discharged  from  Mr.  Davenport,  was 
presented  and  granted. "||  At  the  present  day  few  members  of  the 
church  would  think  of  troubling  the  Presbytery  with  such  requests, 
and  few  presbyteries  would  think  of  exercising  jurisdiction  in  the 
case. 

This  Presbytery  moreover  exercised  the  right  of  deciding  how  a 
minister's  time  should  be  apportioned  between  the  several  branches 
of  his  congregation,  and  whether  new  places  of  worship  should  be 
erected  or  not.  In  1752,  "  a  petition  was  presented  from  King- 
wood  for  liberty  to  build  a  meeting-house  for  their  own  conveni- 
ence ;  and  after  hearing  said  affair,  and  deliberating  thereupon, 
the  Presbytery,"  it  is  said,  "  do  grant  their  petition  and  order  that 

*  Minutes  of  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  p.  155. 

t  Ibid.  p.  163.  J  Ibid,  see  pp.  200,  203,  204,  251,  &c.  &o. 

I  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  5.  ||  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  15. 


262  P  R  E  S  B  Y  T  E  R  I  A  R     C  II  U  R  C  H 

henceforth  that  half  of  Mr.  Lewis'  time  which  has  been  hitherto 
spent  in- the  Western  Branch  be  equally  divided  between  Beth- 
lehem and  Kingwood,  and  that  each  part  pay  in  proportion  to  their 
time."*  In  those  days  the  villages  of  Kingston  and  Princeton, 
three  miles  apart,  formed  one  parish,  and  the  people  of  Princeton 
wished  to  have  a  separate  place  of  worship,  and  a  certain  portion 
of  the  pastor's  time,  but  their  requests  were  repeatedly  disallowed.! 
In  1755,  a  motion  was  again  "  made  in  behalf  of  Princeton  for 
supplies,  and  for  liberty  to  build  a  meeting-house  there,"  and  the 
Presbytery,  it  is  said,  "  do  grant  liberty  to  the  people  of  the  said 
town  to  build  a  meeting-house.  "J 

The  control  exercised  by  the  Presbytery  over  its  own  members 
was  no  less  strict.  An  example  has  already  been  given  of  the 
Presbytery's  deciding  what  portion  of  a  minister's  time  should  be 
given  to  each  of  the  several  congregations  under  his  care.  We 
find  too  that  licentiates,  if  they  wished  to  officiate  out  of  the  bounds 
of  the  Presbytery  to  which  they  belonged,  obtained  special  per- 
mission for  that  purpose.  Thus  in  1755,  the  Presbytery  gave 
"  Mr.  Hait  free  liberty  to  officiate  within  the  bounds  of  the  New 
Castle  Presbytery  as  much  of  the  time  before  next  commencement, 
as  he  inclines  to  improve  for  that  purpose."  This  permission  was 
granted  in  consequence,  it  is  stated,  "  of  an  earnest  request  from 
our  Reverend  brethren  of  the  New  Castle  Presbytery,  that  we 
would  assist  them  with  respect  to  the  vast  number  of  vacant  con- 
gregations under  their  care  in  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  Vir- 
ginia, besides  fourteen  congregations  in  North  Carolina,  who  have 
applied  to  them  for  gospel  ministers,  whose  circumstances  are  pecu- 
culiarly  distressing  and  dangerous  ;  in  which  letter  is  also  a  par- 
ticular request  that  Mr.  Benjamin  Hait  may  be  allowed  to  join 
them,  or  at  least  to  help  them  this  summer."§  It  is,  therefore,  a 
great  mistake  to  suppose  that  these  Presbyteries  were  distinguished 
for  a  loose  form  of  ecclesiastical  government.  They  carried  out 
the  principles  of  Presbyterianism  much  further  than  is  now  com- 
mon among  us. 

*  Minutes  of  Now  Brunswick  Presbytery,  p.  200. 

t  Ibid.  pp.  180  and  192.  J  Ibid.  pp.  233  and  236.  g  Ibid.  p.  233. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  263 

The  character  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  may  be  still  further 
illustrated  by  a  reference  to  the  fact  that  they  conformed  to  the 
Scottish  usage,  as  thoroughly  as  the  old  Synod  of  Philadelphia. 
In  the  first  place,  after  the  manner  of  the  church  in  Scotland,  they 
had  a  commission,  which  sat  during  the  intervals  of  Synod,  clothed 
with  full  synodical  powers.  This  commission  was  appointed  regu- 
larly every  year.* 

In  the  second  place  they  frequently  appointed  committees  with 
plenary  powers  to  decide  particular  cases.  Thus  in  1750,  when 
the  German  church  at  Rockaway  applied  to  be  taken  under  the 
care  of  the  Synod,  Messrs.  Pierson,  Burr,  Arthur,  Smith,  and 
Spencer,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  visit  the  place,  ascertain 
the  facts,  and  decide  upon  the  application.!  In  1753,  the  com- 
mittee sent  to  New  York,  received  the  request  of  the  ministers  to 
be  dismissed  from  their  pastoral  charge ;  and  decided  against  the 
immediate  removal  of  Mr.  Pemberton,  but  dissolved  the  connection 
between  Mr.  Cumming  and  that  congregation. J  In  1755,  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  with  authority  to  dismiss  Mr.  Bostwick  from 
Jamaica,  with  a  view  to  his  removal  to  New  York :  they  referred 
the  matter  to  the  commission  by  whom  the  transfer  was  effected. § 
In  the  Presbyteries  this  method  of  acting  by  committees  was  still 
more  frequently  resorted  to.  Men  were  licensed,  ordained,  and 
dismissed  by  committees  specially  appointed  for  the  purpose. ||  It 
if-as  not  competent,  however,  for  these  committees  to  assume  pres- 
byterial  powers  except  for  the  special  purpose  of  their  appointment. 
Hence  in  1750,  when  application  was  made  to  the  committee  ap- 
pointed to  license  Mr.  Todd,  to  make  arrangements  for  the  ordina- 
tion of  Mr.  Campbell,  it  was  decided  "  that  being  only  a  committee 
they  cannot  proceed  to  the  ordination  of  Mr.  C.  or  make  any  ap- 
pointment therefor.  "T[ 

In  the  third  place,  the  Synod  frequently  acted  in  a  presbyterial 
capacity.     The   most   common   occasion  for  the   exercise   of  such 

*  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  pp.  5,  8,  16,  32,  76,  100,  121,  130. 
f  Ibid.  p.  25.  %  Ibid.  pp.  66-70.  \  Ibid.  pp.  103-105. 

||  See  Minutes  of  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  pp.  59,  62,  86,  93,  130,  148, 
Ac.  Ac.  fl  Ibid.  p.  146. 


204  PRESBYTERIAN     C  II  U  R  C  II 

powers  was  the  appointment  of  supplies  for  vacant  congregations 
This  was  done  by  the  Synod  not  merely  in  its  character  of  a  mis- 
sionary society,  but  in  that  of  a  large  Presbytery,  having  the  over- 
sight over  all  the  churches,  and  the  direction  of  all  its  members 
Thus  in  1753,  they  appointed  Mr.  Blair,  Mr.  Bay,  Mr.  Henry,  Mr. 
Finley,  and  Mr.  Rodgers,  to  supply  Mr.  Davies'  congregation  dur- 
ing his  absence,  and  then  appointed  supplies  for  the  congregations 
of  those  ministers.  In  like  manner  Mr.  Treat,  Mr.  William  Ten- 
nent,  Mr.  Beatty,  Mr.  Burr,  Mr.  Pemberton,  and  Mr.  Cumming, 
were  directed  to  preach,  each  four  sabbaths  for  Mr.  Gilbert  Ten- 
nent's  congregation.*  In  1754,  an  application  being  received  from 
Hanover  for  further  supplies,  the  Synod  sent  Mr.  Greenman  to 
them,  and  directed  Mr.  Clark,  a  candidate  under1  the  care  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  to  preach  for  Mr.  Greenman  during  his 
absence.  In  1756,  the  committee  of  Synod  sent  to  Jamaica  to 
decide  on  Mr.  Bostwick's  removal,  though  they  did  not  dismiss 
him,  directed  him  to  preach  most  of  the  winter  in  New  York,  and 
then  appointed  supplies  for  his  congregation.  And  the  commission 
did  the  same  thing,  when  they  decided  on  his  final  removal  to  New 
York.  It  was  a  common  practice,  when  the  Synod  sent  any  of 
their  members  on  a  distant  mission,  for  them  to  take  upon  them- 
selves the  duty  of  making  provision  for  their  congregations.  And 
even  when  there  was  no  special  reason  for  it,  applications  were 
made  directly  to  the  Synod.  Thus  in  1757,  a  commissioner  from 
Newark  requested  supplies  for  that  congregation,  and  the  Synod 
appointed  Mr.  Treat  to  preach  for  them  for  three  sabbaths,  and  as 
much  more  as  he  could. f  Sometimes  one  Presbytery  was  directed 
to  supply  the  congregations  within  the  bounds  of  another.  Thus 
"  in  order  to  supply  the  congregations,"  it  is  said,  "of  those  min- 
isters who  are  gone  to  the  southward,  the  Synod  appoint  the  Pres- 
byteries of  New  Brunswick  and  Abington  to  supply  within  the 
bounds  of  New  York  Presbytery,  each  four  sabbaths ;  and  the 
Presbytery  of  Suffolk  to  supply  either  New  York  or  Jamaica,  as 
need  shall  be,  each  member  two  sabbaths."| 

Even  calls  for  ministers,  and  applications  from  congregations  to 
*  Minutes,  p.  59.  f  Ibid.  p.  127.  %  Ibid.  p.  89. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  265 

be  taken  under  the  care  of-  the  Synod,  were  at  times  directed  im 
mediately  to  them  and  not  to  a  Presbytery.  In  1748,  "  a  call  was 
brought  into  Synod  from  Falling  Spring  and  New  Providence,  for 
Mr.  Byram,  the  acceptance  of  which  he  declined."*  The  German 
congregation  of  Rockaway  applied  immediately  to  the  Synod  to  be 
taken  into  connection  with  our  church,  and  they  entertained  the 
application. f  The  whole  action  of  the  Synod,  in  reference  to  the 
congregation  in  New  York,  was  presbyterial  rather  than  synodical. 
A  committee  of  the  Synod  selected  and  nominated  elders ;  received 
and  decided  complaints  against  the  pastors,  one  of.  whom,  at  his 
own  request,  they  dismissed  conditionally,  and  the  other  defini- 
tively. The  Synod,  or  its  commission,  moreover  decided  what 
version  of  the  Psalms  should  be  used,  and  transferred  Mr.  Bost- 
wick  from  one  church  to  another.  Some  of  these  cases  were  in 
deed  brought  up,  by  reference  from  the  Presbytery ;  but  in  most 
of  them  the  Synod  exercised  original  jurisdiction. 

It  appears,  then,  from  this  review,  that  the  Synod  of  New  York 
was  a  strictly  Presbyterian  body.  They  not  only  declared  the 
Church  of  Scotland  to  be  their  mother  church,  and  claimed  to  be 
united  with  her  "in  the  same  faith,  order,  and  discipline,"  having 
adopted  her  standards  both  of  doctrine  and  government,  but  in  all 
their  measures  and  modes  of  action  they  adhered  to  the  Presby- 
terian system.  There  was  not  only  the  regular  exercise  of  ses- 
sional, presbyterial,  and  synodical  supervision,  but  the  control  exer- 
cised over  ministers  and  churches  was  more  direct  and  extended 
than  that  to  which  we  are  accustomed.  And  further,  in  the  regular 
appointment  of  a  commission,  in  the  frequent  use  of  committees 
with  full  powers,  and  in  the  exercise  of  presbyterial  functions,  this 
Synod  conformed  to  the  usages  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  more 
nearly  than  our  church  has  ever  done  since  the  formation  of  our 
present  constitution. 

This  Synod  was  no  less  distinguished  for  its  zeal  for  sound  learn- 
ing and  evangelical  religion.     It  embraced  a  very  large  proportion 
of  the  best  educated,  as  well  as  of  the  most  fervent  and  pious  min- 
isters of  the  church.     The  field  which  they  had  to  cultivate  was  so 
*  Minutes,  p.  11.  f  Ibid.  p.  25. 


266  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

extensive,  and  was  so  rapidly  filling  with  inhabitants,  that  it  re- 
quired the  most  laborious  exertion  to  keep  it  even  tolerably  sup- 
plied. The  members  of  the  Synod  were  therefore  obliged  to  make 
long  and  frequent  journeys,  and  to  give  themselves  up  to  their  work 
with  a  devotion  which  would  now  be  deemed  extraordinary.  Per- 
haps there  is  no  ecclesiastical  body  to  which  our  church  and  coun- 
try are  more  indebted  than  to  this  Synod  of  New  York. 

It  only  remains  to  give  an  account  of  the  negotiations  which  led 
to  the  union  of  the  two  Synods.  The  first  overtures  were  made  by 
the  Synod  of  New  York  in  1749,  when  it  was  carried,  "  by  a  great 
majority  of  votes,"  that  the  following  proposals  should  be  sent  to 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  viz. : 

"  The  Synod  of  New  York  are  deeply  sensible  of  the  many 
unhappy  consequences  that  flow  from  our  present  divided  state ; 
and  have,  with  pleasure,  observed  a  spirit  of  moderation  increasing 
between  many  members  of  both  Synods.  This  opens  a  door  of 
hope,  that  if  we  were  united  in  one  body,  we  might  be  able  to  carry 
on  the  designs  of  religion  in  future  peace  and  agreement,  to  our 
mutual  satisfaction.  And  though  we  retain  the  same  sentiments 
of  the  work  of  God  which  we  formerly  did,  yet  we  esteem  mutual 
forbearance  our  duty,  since  we  all  profess  the  same  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Directory  for  worship.  We  would,  therefore,  humbly 
propose  to  our  brethren  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  that  all  our 
former  differences  be  buried  in  perpetual  oblivion  ;  and  that,  for 
the  time  to  come,  both  Synods  be  united  in  one,  and  that  hence- 
forth there  be  no  contentions  among  us,  but  to  carry  towards  each 
other  in  the  most  peaceable  and  brotherly  manner,  which  we  are 
persuaded  will  be  for  the  honour  of  our  Master,  the  credit  of  our 
profession,  and  the  edification  of  the  churches  committed  to  our 
care.  Accordingly  we  appoint  the  Rev.  Messrs.  John  Pierson,  Gil- 
bert Tennent,  Ebenezer  Pembcrton,  and  Aaron  Burr,  to  be  our 
delegates  to  wait  upon  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  with  these  pro- 
posals ;  and  if  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  see  meet  to  join  with  us 
in  this  design,  and  will  please  to  appoint  a  commission  to  meet  for 
that  purpose,  we  appoint  the  Rev.  Messrs.  John  Pierson,  Ebenezer 
Pemberton,  Aaron  Burr,   Gilbert  and   William  Tennent,   Richard 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  267 

Treat,  Samuel  and  John  Blair,  John  Roan,  Samuel  Finley,  Eben- 
ezer  Prime,  David  Bostwick,  and  James  Brown,  (whom  we  ap- 
point a  commission  of  the  Synod  for  the  ensuing  year,)  to  meet 
with  the  commission  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  at  such  time 
and  place  as  they  shall  choose,  to  determine  the  affair  of  the 
union  agreeably  to  the  preliminary  articles  determined  upon  by  this 
Synod.  And  it  is  agreed  that  any  other  of  our  members,  who  shall 
please  to  meet  with  the  commission,  shall  have  liberty  of  voting 
and  acting  in  said  affair  equally  with  the  members  of  said  commis- 
sion. Which  articles  proposed  as  a  general  plan  of  union,  are  as 
follows,  viz. : 

"  1.  To  preserve  the  common  peace,  we  would  propose  that  all 
names  of  distinction,  which  have  been  made  use  of  in  the  late 
times,  be  for  ever  abolished. 

"  2.  That  every  member  assent  unto  and  adopt  the  Confession 
of  Faith  and  Directory,  according  to  the  plan  formerly  agreed  to 
by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  years . 

"  3.  That  every  member  promise  that,  after  any  question  has 
been  determined  by  the  major  vote,  he  will  actively  concur,  or  pas- 
sively submit  to  the  judgment  of  the  body.  But  if  his  conscience 
permit  him  to  do  neither  of  these,  that  then  he  shall  be  obliged 
peaceably  to  withdraw  from  our  synodical  communion,  without  any 
attempt  to  make  a  schism  or  division  among  us.  Yet  this  is  not 
intended  to  extend  to  any  cases  but  those  which  the  Synod  judge 
essential  in  matters  of  doctrine  or  discipline. 

"4.  That  all  our  respective  congregations  and  vacancies  be 
acknowledged  as  congregations  belonging  to  the  Synod,  but  con- 
tinue under  the  care  of  the  same  presbyteries  as  now  they  are, 
until  a  favourable  opportunity  presents  for  an  advantageous  alter- 
ation. 

"  5.  That  we  all  agree  to  esteem  and  treat  it  as  a  censurable  evil 
to  accuse  any  of  our  members  of  error  in  doctrine,  or  immorality 
in  conversation,  any  otherwise  than  by  private  reproof,  till  the 
accusation  has  been  brought  before  a  regular  judicature,  and  issued 
according  to  the  known  rules  of  our  discipline."* 

*  Minutes,  pp.  15-17. 


268  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  having  acceded  to  the  proposal  for  a 
conference,  the  commissioners  of  the  two  Synods  met  at  Trenton, 
October  5,  1749.  From  the  minutes  of  this  meeting,  it  appears 
that  "  the  commissioners  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  considering 
the  protest  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  whereby  they  excluded 
from  their  communion  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  and  their 
adherents,  as  one  principal  bar  to  an  union,  waiving  all  other  mat- 
ters, immediately  insisted  that  said  protest  should,  by  some  authentic 
and  formal  act  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  be  made  null  and 
void.  The  debates  on  this  head  rose  very  high,  and  there  appear- 
ing no  prospect  of  accommodation,  the  commissioners  of  both 
Synods  came  unanimously  into  this  conclusion,  viz.  :  that  whereas 
certain  difficulties  arose  in  the  conversation  of  the  commissioners 
of  both  Synods,  they  came  finally  unanimously  into  this  agreement, 
that  both  Synods  at  their  next  sessions  do  more  fully  prepare  pro- 
posals for  an  accommodation,  and  interchange  said  proposals ;  and 
that,  in  the  mean  time,  there  be  a  mutual  endeavour  to  cultivate  a 
spirit  of  candour  and  friendship.  At  the  same  time,  these  principal 
things  were  especially  recommended  to  the  consideration  of  their 
respective  Synods :  1.  The  protest.  2.  That  paragraph  about 
essentials.     3.   Of  Presbyteries."* 

From  the  report  of  the  commissioners  made  to  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  relating  to  this  meeting,  it  appears  that  "the  dele- 
gates from  the  Synod  of  New  York  agreed  to  the  following  conces- 
sions and  amendments  in  the  aforementioned  proposals,  which, 
according  to  the  references  in  them,  are  as  follows :  1.  '  Though 
great  and  good  men  have  been  of  different  opinions,  (about  the 
revival.')  2.  'Always  reserving  a  liberty  for  such  dissenting  mem- 
ber to  lay  his  grievances  before  Synod  in  a  peaceable  manner.  N.  B. 
What  remains  of  the  sentence  to  be  erased.'  (This  amendment 
relates  to  article  three,  in  the  New  York  proposals.)  3.  That  there 
be  no  intrusions  into  the  bounds  of  Presbyteries  or  pastoral  charges, 
against  the  inclination  of  the  Presbyteries  or  pastors.  4.  That  all 
candidates  for  the  work  of  the  sacred  ministry  either  be  examined 
and  approved  by  the  Synod  or  its  commission,  previous   to  their 

*  See  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  21. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  269 

admission  upon  trials  by  any  of  our  Presbyteries,  or  else  that  they 
be  obliged  to  obtain  a  college  diploma,  or  a  certificate  from  the 
president  or  trustees  of  the  college,  that  they  have  been  examined 
and  found  qualified.  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent  only  objected  against 
the  synodical  examination."* 

The  Synod  of  New  York  received,  in  May,  1750,  the  report  of 
their  commissioners,  of  the  failure  of  the  conference  at  Trenton, 
and  deferred  further  action  on  the  subject  until  their  meeting  in 
the  autumn.  Proposals  were  then  prepared  which  differed  but  little 
from  those  at  first  offered.  The  first  article  provides  for  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Confession  and  Directory.  The  second  relates  to  the 
decisions  of  the  Synod,  and  is  nearly  in  the  same  words  as  the  for- 
mer article  relating  to  the  same  subject.  The  third  is  against  rash 
judging.  The  fourth  provides,  "  that  no  candidate  shall  be  taken 
upon  trials  by  any  Presbytery  without  a  degree,  or  certificate  from 
the  president  and  a  sufficient  number  of  tutors  or  trustees  of  some 
college,  testifying  to  the  sufficiency  of  his  learning,  except  in  cases 
extraordinary,  in  which  the  Presbyteries  shall  be  accountable  to 
the  Synod  for  their  conduct."  The  fifth  was,  "that  it  shall  be 
treated  as  irregular  for  any  minister  or  candidate  to  preach,  or 
perform  other  ministerial  offices  in  the  congregations  of  other  min- 
isters belonging  to  our  body,  contrary  to  their  minds.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  shall  be  esteemed  unbrotherly  for  any  minister  to 
refuse  his  consent,  without  weighty  reasons,  when  amicably  de- 
sired." The  sixth  provides  for  the  Presbyteries  and  congregations 
remaining  as  they  then  were.  The  seventh  requires  "  that  the 
protestation  made  in  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  year  1741, 
be  declared  henceforth  void  and  of  none  effect ;  and  that  the  pro- 
posed union  shall  not  be  understood  to  imply  an  agreement  or  con- 
sent to  said  protestation  on  the  part  of  this  Synod."  And  finally, 
"forasmuch  as  this  Synod  doth  believe,  as  they  have  before  de- 
clared, that  a  glorious  work  of  God's  Spirit  was  carried  on  in  the 
late  religious  appearances ;  though  we  doubt  not  but  there  were 
several  follies  and  extravagancies  of  people,  and  artifices  of  Satan 
intermixed  therewith  ;  it  would  be  pleasing  and  desirable  for  us, 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  iii.  p.  34. 


270  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

and  what  we  hope  for,  that  both  Synods  may  come  so  far  to  agree 
in  their  sentiments  about  it,  as  to  give  their  joint  testimony 
thereto."* 

To  these  proposals  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  replied,  1.  That  it 
was  unreasonable  to  make  the  declaration  that  the  protest  of  1741 
was  void,  a  term  of  communion,  since  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia 
had  declared  that  they  would  act  towards  their  brethren  of  New 
York  as  though  that  protest  had  never  been  made.  If  any  thing 
more  was  intended  by  declaring  it  void,  they  were  not  prepared  for 
it,  as  they  believed  it  had  been  made  on  sufficient  and  justifiable 
grounds.  2.  They  objected  to  the  Presbyteries  remaining  as  they 
then  were,  as  they  considered  it  essential  to  the  peace  of  the  church 
that  the  distinction  between  old  and  new-side  Presbyteries  should 
be  done  away.  3.  They  objected  to  making  a  testimony  to  the 
revival  a  term  of  communion,  as  the  commissioners  from  New  York 
had  admitted  that  great  and  good  men  differed  on  that  subject ; 
and  as  the  Synod  itself  acknowledged  that  it  was  mixed  with  ex- 
travagancies, and  artifices  of  Satan.  Before  such  a  testimony 
could  be  given,  it  must  be  known  what  was  regarded  as  genuine, 
and  what  as  spurious.  4.  They  agreed  that  all  the  members  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York  should  be  members  of  the  united  Synod,  but 
they  thought  that  where  ministers  had  unjustly  intruded  into  their 
congregations,  and  rendered  them  too  feeble  to  support  their  pas- 
tors, something  should  be  done  to  rectify  the  evil. 

For  a  further  exposition  of  their  views,  they  refer  the  Synod  of 
New  York  to  the  proposals  sent  to  them  after  the  Trenton  confer- 
ence, but  before  the  reception  of  those  above  stated  from  New- 
York.  They  particularly  refer  the  Synod  of  New  Yrork  to  the 
article  respecting  the  decision  of  affairs  by  majority  of  votes. 
"We  apprehend,"  they  say,  "it  is  strictly  Presbyterian  and  rea- 
sonable, and  are  not  convinced  the  alteration  in  that  article  pro- 
posed by  you,  about  what  is  essential  and  what  is  not,  is  necessary  ;f 

*  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  pp.  27,  28. 

f  As  the  commissioners  from  New  York  at  the  Trenton  conference  agreed 
to  erase  that  part  of  the  article  which  made  the  distinction  referred  to,  its  be- 
ing introduced  anew  by  the  Synod  of  New  York,  is  called  "  an  alteration." 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  271 

nay,  we  apprehend  that  such  an  alteration  as  stated  by  you  has  a 
bad  aspect,  and  opens  a  door  for  an  unjustifiable  latitude  in  prin- 
ciples and  practices."  They  express  their  satisfaction  at  the  pro- 
posal that  candidates  should  bring  a  college  certificate ;  and,  as 
that  answered  every  purpose,  they  withdrew  their  alternative  about 
synodical  examination.* 

The  proposals  sent  from  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  to  that  of 
New  York,  before  the  reception  of  those  to  which  the  above  objec- 
tions refer,  were  substantially  as  follows  :  1.  That  all  names  of  dis- 
tinction be  abolished.  2.  That  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Direc- 
tory be  adopted  "  according  to  the  plan  agreed  on  in  our  Synod, 
and  that  no  acts  be  made  but  concerning  matters  which  appear 
plain  duty,  or  concerning  opinions  that  we  believe  relate  to  the 
great  truths  of  religion,  and  that  all  public  and  fundamental  agree- 
ments of  this  Synod  stand  safe."  3.  Makes  the  usual  provision  for 
conscientious  dissentients.  4.  Against  rash  judging.  5.  Relates  to 
intrusions  and  reception  of  candidates.  On  these  three  points  the 
two  Synods  were  already  agreed.  6.  It  was  proposed  that  Presby- 
teries should  be  made  up  of  the  ministers  who  lived  contiguous  to 
one  another ;  but  if  any  minister  was  dissatisfied,  he  might  join 
what  Presbytery  he  pleased.  7.  With  regard  to  the  divided  con- 
gregations, or  new  erections,  as  they  were  called,  it  was  proposed 
that  where  each  party  was  able  to  support  a  minister,  both  should 
continue ;  where  neither  was  thus  able,  efforts  should  be  made  to  unite 
them ;  and  "  where  new  erections  have  been  made  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  former  standing  congregations,  and  said  erections  supplied 
with  ministers,  said  ministers  be  removed,  and  all  proper  methods 
be  taken  to  heal  the  breach." 

These  proposals  were  received  by  the  Synod  of  New  York  in 
1751,  who  made  to  them  the  following  objections.  1.  "  Though 
the  Synod  make  no  acts  but  concerning  matters  of  plain  duty  or 
opinions  relating  to  the  great  truths  of  religion  ;  yet  as  every  thing 
that  appears  plain  duty  and  truth  unto  the  body,  may  appear  at 
the  same  time  not  to  be  essential ;  so  we  judge  that  no  member  or 
members  should  be  obliged  to  withdraw  from  our  communion  upon 

*  See  Minutes  of  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  iii.  pp.  36-39. 


272  PRESBYTERIAN    CIIURCH 

his  or  their  not  being  able  actively  to  concur  or  passively  submit, 
unless  the  matter  be  judged  essential  in  doctrine  and  discipline." 

2.  They  objected  of  course  to  the  public  acts  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, made  since  the  schism,  being  binding  on  the  united  body. 

3.  They  thought  it  would  not  be  for  peace  or  edification  in  any 
measure  to  coerce  the  union  of  divided  congregations.  4.  As  they 
had  a  college,  there  was  no  need  of  the  alternative  plan,  of  synod- 
ical  examination  of  candidates.* 

The  letter  from  the  Philadelphia  Synod,  above  mentioned,  con- 
taining strictures  on  the  New  York  proposals,  was  not  received  by 
the  Synod  of  New  York  until  1752,  when  on  account  of  the  pres- 
sure of  other  business,  they  returned  a  very  short  reply,  in  which 
they  say :  "  We  shall  endeavour  to  give  it  a  calm  and  deliberate 
consideration,  and  hope  we  shall  return  you  such  an  answer  as 
shall  give  you  convincing  evidence  that  we  entertain  the  most  affec- 
tionate desires  of  peace  and  union  upon  such  a  bottom  as  may  con- 
tribute to  the  peace  and  comfort  of  all  our  churches,  "f  This 
answer  they  gave  at  their  next  meeting  in  1753.  They  justify 
their  insisting  on  the  protest  being  declared  void,  on  the  ground 
that  if  it  was  a  judicial  act,  it  must  stand  in  full  force  and  virtue, 
unless  it  be  repealed  by  an  equal  act ;  and  that  their  uniting  with 
them  without  its  repeal  would  be  an  implicit  approbation  of  it. 
They  insisted  that  Presbyteries  and  congregations  should  remain 
as  they  were,  as  it  would  produce  but  a  jarring  concord  to  force 
people  together  faster  than  they  have  clearness  to  go.  As  to  the 
joint  testimony  to  the  revival  previously  proposed,  it  was  not  de- 
signed as  a  term  of  communion,  but  a  desirable  thing ;  as  they 
hoped  that  upon  friendly  conference  the  difference  on  that  subject 
would  not  be  found  to  be  as  great  as  it  had  seemed.  That  no  dis- 
senting member  should  be  obliged  to  withdraw  from  their  communion, 
unless  the  matter  be  judged  by  the  body  essential  in  doctrine  and 
discipline,  they  say,  appeared  to  them  to  be  strictly  Christian  and 
scriptural,  as  well  as  Presbyterian,  and  not  liable  to  the  objection 

*  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  35.  f  Ibid.  p.  43. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  273 

of  unjustifiable  latitude,  as  the  Synod  had  the  power  of  judging 
•what  is  essential  and  what  is  not.* 

This  latter  point  does  not  appear  to  have  been  again  adverted 
to,  or  to  have  given  any  further  trouble.  Neither  Synod  was  dis- 
posed to  make  "  every  truth  or  duty"  a  term  of  communion  ;  and 
each  had  made  the  adoption  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith 
a  condition  of  admission  into  the  sacred  office.  The  article  in 
question  indeed  did  not  relate  to  the  admission  of  members,  but  to 
their  exclusion  ;  and  is  therefore  analogous  to  those  provisions  of 
our  present  constitution  which  declare  that,  in  case  of  process 
against  a  minister,  "  errors  should  be  carefully  considered,  whether 
they  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  are  industriously  spread, 
or  whether  they  arise  from  the  weakness  of  the  human  understand- 
ing, and  are  not  likely  to  do  much  injury;"  and  which  direct, 
"  That  a  minister  under  process  for'  heresy  or  schism  should  be 
treated  with  Christian  and  brotherly  tenderness.  Frequent  con- 
ferences  ought  to  be  held  with  him,  and  proper  admonitions  admin- 
istered. For  some  more  dangerous  errors,  however,  suspension 
may  become  necessary. "f 

It  has  already  been  proved  J  that  this  Synod  did  not  make  ad- 
herence to  the  mere  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel  the  condition 
of  ministerial  communion.  This  is  indeed  evident  from  the  form 
of  expression  adopted  in  the  article  itself,  which  speaks  of  what  is 
essential  "in  doctrine  or  discipline."  The  discipline  intended  is 
the  discipline  adopted  by  the  Synod,  and  the  doctrine  intended  is 
the  system  of  doctrine  which  they  had  adopted.  This  interpreta- 
tion is  expressly  asserted  to  be  the  meaning  of  this  language  by 
the  members  of  the  Synod  themselves  ;§  and  it  is  the  only  one  at 
all  consistent  with  the  official  declarations  of  the  body, .that  they 
had  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  "  as  the  test  of 
orthodoxy"  among  them,||  and  that  they  had  the  same  standard  of 
doctrine  as  the  church  of  Scotland.     At  the  very  time  that  these 

*  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  55,  &c. 

t  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  V.  g|  13,  14.  J  Chap.  III.  p.  173,  &c. 

I  See  chap.  III.  p.  169.  ||  Chap.  VI.  p.  255. 

VOL.  II. — 18 


274  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

negotiations  were  going  on,  the  Synod  of  New  York  had  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Barker  under  process  for  teaching  doctrines  which  had  an  Ar- 
rninian  tendency,*  and  for  which,  after  the  union  of  the  two 
Synods,  he  was  suspended.  "  That  therefore,"  says  Mr.  John 
Blair,  "is  an  essential  error  in  the  Synod's  sense,  which  is  of  such 
malignity  as  to  subvert  or  greatly  to  injure  the  system  of  doctrine 
and  mode  of  worship  and  government  contained  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory. "f 

In  1754,  a  letter  was  sent  from  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  to 
that  of  New  York,  which  is  not  on  record,  containing  a  request  for 
a  renewed  conference.  A  committee  was  consequently  appointed 
to  attend  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  at  their  next  meeting.!  The 
result  of  this  conference  was,  that  the  Philadelphia  brethren  pro- 
posed that  all  previous  differences  should  be  dropped,  and  the  two 
Synods  should  unite  "  as  two  contiguous  bodies  of  Christians 
agreed  in  principle,  as  though  they  had  never  been  concerned  with 
one  another  before,  nor  had  any  differences."  The  New  York 
brethren,  however,  were  not  satisfied  with  this  proposal,  but  insisted 
that  "the  protestation  made  in  1741,  should  be  withdrawn." 
When  this  result  was  communicated  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
they  said  they  saw  not  what  they  could  propose  further.  As  to 
the  protest,  they  had  frequently  declared  they  would  act  in  case  of 
an  union  as  though  it  never  had  been  made ;  that  as  every  member 

*  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  130.  "A  reference  was  brought  into 
Synod  from  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  respecting  Mr,  Samuel  Harker, 
one  of  their  members,  as  having  imbibed  and  vented  certain  erroneous  doc- 
trines. The  Synod,  after  serious  consideration  had,  do  agree,  that  inasmuch 
as  Mr.  Harker  is  absent,  they  cannot  proceed  to  a  regular  determination  of 
said  affair ;  and  do  therefore  appoint  Messrs.  Gilbert  Tennent,  Richard  Treat, 
Samuel  Finley,  and  John  Blair,  to  deal  with  him,  as  they  shall  have  oppor- 
tunity, in  such  manner  as  shall  appear  to  them  best  adapted  for  his  convic- 
tion, and  refer  the  further  determination  to  the  next  Synod,  if  there  shall  be 
need.  And  in  the  meantime  the  Synod  does  recommend  it  to  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Brunswick  to  take  such  measures  as  they  shall  judge  best  to  prevent 
the  spread  and  hurtful  influence  of  those  errors." 

f  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  vindicated,  p.  11. 

X  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  71. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  275 

had  a  right  to  protest,  the  judicature  could  neither  forbid  it,  nor 
annul  or  withdraw  such  protest  when  made  ;  it  was  solely  in  the 
power  of  the  protesters.  As  some  members  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  felt  aggrieved  by  the  protest,  so  some  of  their  members  felt 
themselves  greatly  injured  by  the  conduct  of  some  of  the  New 
York  brethren,  and  unless  mutual  concessions  were  made,  an  union 
was  out  of  the  question.* 

As  this  year  the  Synod  of  New  York  met  in  the  autumn,  this 
minute  came  before  them  the  same  year,  viz. :  1755  ;  and  they 
replied  to  it  by  saying,  that  they  were  fully  sensible  that  peace 
and  union  were  of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  church  of  Christ, 
and  that  their  being  dissatisfied  with  the  mere  general  proposal  to 
drop  all  former  differences,  and  to  unite  on  scriptural  and  reason- 
able terms,  and  their  insisting  on  particulars,  arose  simply  from  the 
desire  to  render  the  union  effectual.  They  admitted  that  their  demand 
to  have  the  protest  annulled,  could  have  no  propriety  but  on  the 
assumption  that  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  had  approved  and 
adopted  it ;  and  consequently  if  they  would  say  "  that  in  their 
synodical  capacity  they  do  not  adopt  it,"  all  difficulty  would  be 
removed  on  that  score.  "As  the  protest,"  they  add,  "appears  to 
be  a  principal  obstruction  to  the  union  of  the  two  Synods,"  they 
proposed,  that  in  case  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  admitted  it  not 
to  be  officially  their  act,  the  two  Synods  should  unite  on  the  terms 
previously  proposed,  and  immediately  "  proceed  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine the  differences  between  the  protesters  and  those  protested 
against,  if  needful,  "f 

In  1756,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  replied,  "  We  desire  to  unite 
on  the  same  terms  on  which  the  ministers  of  the  two  Synods  were 
united,  when  one  body  ;  and  we  are  glad  to  join  with  the  Synod 
of  New  York  in  any  expedient  to  cut  off  all  debates  about  the  pro- 
testation made  in  1741.  We  allow  the  protesters  the  right  of 
private  judgment ;  and  you  will  allow  we  can  neither  disannul  nor 
withdraw  their  protestation  ;  but  in  our  synodical  capacity,  at  your 
desire,  we  declare  and  do  assure  you,  that  we  neither  adopted  nor 

*  Minutes  of  Philadelphia  Synod,  p.  52. 

f  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  pp.  91-95. 


27tf  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

do  adopt  said  protestation  as  a  term  of  ministerial  communion.  It 
was  never  mentioned  to  any  of  our  members  as  a  term  of  com- 
munion, more  than  any  of  the  other  protestations  delivered  into 
our  Synod  on  occasion  of  those  differences.  We  only  adopt  and 
desire  to  adhere  to  our  standards,  as  we  agreed  formerly  when  one 
body  ;  we  adopt  no  other." 

The  above  declaration  respecting  the  protest  is  historically  cor- 
rect. It  was  not  a  synodical  act,  but  the  act  of  certain  members 
in  their  individual  capacity.  It  was  never  officially  adopted  or 
sanctioned  by  a  vote  of  the  Synod ;  though  it  was  often  spoken  of 
with  approbation. 

The  Synod  appointed  their  commission  to  meet  such  committee  as 
the  Synod  of  New  York  might  name,  to  prepare  the  terms  of 
union.*  This  latter  Synod  accordingly,  in  September,  1756,  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  meet  the  commission  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia in  1757. 

When  this  joint  committee  met,  "  the  commissioners  of  the 
Philadelphia  Synod  declared  for  themselves,  and  doubted  not 
hut  their  Synod  would  also  readily  declare  that  they  do  not 
look  upon  the  protest  as  the  act  of  their  body  nor  adopt  it  as 
such."  And  as  there  was  an  agreement  on  all  other  points  for- 
merly proposed  as  necessary  to  an  union,  it  was  agreed  to  propose 
to  their  respective  Synods  to  have  their  next  meeting  at  the  same 
time  and  place.  This  proposal  was  acceded  to  on  both  sides,  and 
the  commissions  of  the  two  Synods  were  directed  to  meet  in  Phila- 
delphia the  Monday  before  the  day  appointed  for  the  meeting  of 
the  Synods,  in  order  "  to  prepare  matters  for  their  happy  union. "f 
The  two  Synods  accordingly  met  in  Philadelphia  in  1758.  The 
commissions  reported  the  plan  of  union,  which  was  unanimously 
adopted  by  each  Synod,  who  agreed  to  meet  as  one  body  at  four 
o'clock,  May  29,  1758.  The  plan  of  union,  was  then  read  over  in 
joint  meeting  and  unanimously  approved,  and  is  as  follows : 

"The  Synods  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  taking  into  serious 
consideration  the  present  divided  state  of  the  Presbyterian  church 

*  Minutes  of  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  p.  58. 
t  Minutes  of  Synod  of  New  York,  p.  125. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  277 

in  this  land,  and  being  deeply  sensible  that  the  division  of  the 
church  tends  to  weaken  its  interests,  to  dishonour  religion,  and  con- 
sequently its  glorious  author ;  to  render  government  and  discipline 
ineffectual,  and,  finally,  to  dissolve  its  very  frame ;  and,  being 
desirous  to  pursue  such  measures  as  may  most  tend  to  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  establishment  and  edification  of  his  people,  do  judge 
it  to  be  our  indispensable  duty  to  study  the  things  that  make  for 
peace,  and  to  endeavour  the  healing  of  that  breach  which  has  for 
some  time  existed  among  us,  that  so  its  hurtful  consequences  may 
not  extend  to  posterity,  that  all  occasion  of  reproach  upon  our 
society  may  be  removed,  and  that  we  may  carry  on  the  great  designs 
of  religion  to  better  advantage  than  we  can  do  in  a  divided  state. 
And  since  both  Synods  continue  to  profess  the  same  principles  of 
faith,  and  adhere  to  the  same  form  of  worship,  government,  and 
discipline,  there  is  the  greater  reason  to  endeavour  to  compromise 
the  differences  which  were  agitated  many  years  ago,  with  too  great 
warmth  and  animosity,  and  unite  in  one  body. 

"  For  which  end,  and  that  no  jealousies  or  grounds  of  alienation 
may  remain,  and  also  to  prevent  future  breaches  of  like  nature,  we 
agree  to  unite  in  one  body,  under  the  name  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  and  Philadelphia,  on  the  following  plan : 

"  1.  Both  Synods  having  always  approved  and  received  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Cate- 
chisms, as  an  orthodox  and  excellent  system  of  Christian  doctrine, 
founded  on  the  word  of  God,  we  do  still  receive  the  same  as  the 
profession  of  our  faith,  and  also  adhere  to  the  plan  of  worship, 
government,  and  discipline,  contained  in  the  Westminster  Directory, 
strictly  enjoining  it  on  all  our  members,  and  probationers  for  the 
ministry,  that  they  preach  and  teach  according  to  the  form  of  sound 
words  in  said  Confession  and  Catechisms,  and  avoid  and  oppose  all 
errors  contrary  thereto. 

"  That  when  any  matter  is  determined  by  a  major  vote,  every 
member  shall  either  actively  concur  with,  or  passively  submit  to 
such  determination  ;  or,  if  his  conscience  permit  him  to  do  neither, 
he  shall,  after  sufficient  liberty  modestly  to  reason  and  remonstrate, 
peaceably  withdraw  from  our  communion,  without  attempting  to 


278  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

make  any  schism  :  provided  always,  that  this  shall  he  understood 
to  extend  only  to  such  determinations  as  the  body  shall  judge  in- 
dispensable in  doctrine,  or  Presbyterian  government. 

"3.  That  any  member  or  members,  for  the  exoneration  of  his  or 
their  conscience  before  God,  have  a  right  to  protest  against  any  act 
or  procedure,  of  our  highest  judicature,  because  there  is  no  further 
appeal  to  another  for  redress ;  and  to  require  that  such  protestation 
be  recorded  in  their  minutes.  And  as  such  a  protest  is  a  solemn 
appeal  from  the  bar  of  the  judicature,  no  member  is  liable  to  pro- 
secution on  account  of  his  protesting.  Provided  always,  that  it 
shall  be  considered  irregular  and  unlawful  to  enter  any  protest 
against  any  member  or  members ;  to  protest  facts  or  accusations 
instead  of  proving  them,  unless  a  fair  trial  be  refused,  even  by  the 
highest  judicature.  And  it  is  agreed,  that  such  protestations  are 
only  to  be  entered  against  the  public  acts,  judgments,  or  determi- 
nations, of  the  judicature  with  which  the  protester's  conscience  is 
offended. 

"4  As  the  protestation  entered  in  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
Anno  Domini,  1741,  has  been  apprehended  to  have  been  approved 
and  received  by  an  act  of  the  Synod,  and  on  that  account  was  judged 
a  sufficient  obstacle  to  an  union,  the  said  Synod  declare  that  they 
never  judicially  adopted  the  said  protestation,  nor  do  account  it  a 
synodical  act ;  but  that  it  is  to  be  considered  as  the  act  of  those 
only  who  subscribed  it ;  and  therefore  cannot,  in  its  nature,  be  a 
valid  objection  to  the  union  of  the  two  Synods,  especially  consider- 
ing that  a  very  great  majority  of  both  Synods  have  become  mem- 
bers since  the  said  protestation  was  entered. 

"  5.  That  it  shall  be  esteemed  and  treated  as  a  censurable  evil 
to  accuse  any  member  of  heterodoxy,  insufficiency,  or  immorality, 
in  a  calumniating  manner,  or  otherwise  than  by  private  brotherly 
admonition,  or  by  a  regular  process,  according  to  our  known  rules 
of  judicial  trial  in  cases  of  scandal.  And  it  shall  be  considered  in 
the  same  view  if  any  Presbytery  appoint  supplies  within  the  bounds 
of  another  Presbytery  without  their  concurrence ;  or  if  any  mem- 
ber officiate  in  another's  congregation  without  asking  and  obtaining 
his  consent,  or  the  session's  in  case  the  minister  be  absent.     Yet 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  279 

it  shall  be  esteemed  unbrotherly  for  any  one,  in  ordinary  circum- 
stances, to  refuse  his  consent  to  a  regular  member  when  it  is 
requested. 

"  6.  That  no  Presbytery  shall  license  or  ordain  to  the  work  of 
the  ministry  any  candidate,  until  he  give  them  competent  satisfac- 
tion as  to  his  learning,  and  experimental  acquaintance  with  religion, 
skill  in  divinity  and  cases  of  conscience,  and  declare  his  acceptance 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms  as  the  confession 
of  his  faith,  and  promise  subjection  to  the  Presbyterian  plan  of 
government  in  the  Westminster  Directory. 

"  7.  The  Synods  declare  it  is  their  earnest  desire  that  a  com- 
plete union  may  be  obtained  as  soon  as  possible,  and  agree  that  the 
united  Synods  shall  model  the  several  Presbyteries  as  shall  appear 
to  them  most  expedient.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  Presbyteries 
where  an  alteration  does  not  appear  to  be  for  edification,  continue 
in  their  present  form.  As  to  divided  congregations,  it  is  agreed 
that  such  as  have  settled  ministers  on  both  sides  be  allowed  to  con- 
tinue as  they  are ;  that  where  those  of  one  side  have  a  settled  min- 
ister, the  other,  being  vacant,  may  join  with  the- settled  minister, 
if  a  majority  choose  to  do  so ;  that  where  both  sides  are  vacant, 
they  may  be  at  liberty  to  unite  together. 

"  8.  As  the  late  religious  appearances  occasioned  much  specula- 
tion and  debate,  the  members  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  in  order 
to  prevent  any  misapprehensions,  declare  their  adherence  to  their 
former  sentiments,  in  favour  of  them,  that  a  blessed  work  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit,  in  the  conversion  of  numbers  was  then  carried  on ; 
and  for  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerned,  this  united  Synod  agree 
in  declaring,  that  as  all  mankind  are  naturally  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins,  an  entire  change  of  heart  and  life  is  necessary  to  make 
them  meet  for  the  service  and  enjoyment  of  God;  that  such  a 
change  can  be  only  effected  by  the  powerful  operations  of  the 
Divine  Spirit ;  that  when  sinners  are  made  sensible  of  their  lost 
condition  and  absolute  inability  to  recover  themselves,  are  enlight- 
ened in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  convinced  of  his  ability  and 
willingness  to  save  ;  and,  upon  gospel  encouragements,  do  choose 
him  for  their  Saviour :  and  renouncing  their  own  righteousness  in 


280  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

point  of  merit,  depend  upon  his  imputed  righteousness  for  justifi- 
cation before  God;  and  on  his  wisdom  and  strength  for  guidance 
and  support ;  when  upon  these  apprehensions  and  exercises  their 
souls  are  comforted,  notwithstanding  their  past  guilt,  and  rejoice  in 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ ;  when  they  hate  and  bewail  their  sins 
of  heart  and  life,  delight  in  the  laws  of  God  without  exception, 
reverently  and  diligently  attend  his  ordinances,  become  humble  and 
self-denied,  and  make  it  the  business  of  their  life  to  please  and 
glorify  God  and  to  do  good  to  their  fellow-men — this  is  to  be  ac- 
knowledged as  a  gracious  work  of  God,  even  though  it  should  be 
attended  with  unusual  bodily  commotions,  or  some  more  exception- 
able circumstances,  by  means  of  infirmity,  temptations,  or  remain- 
ing corruptions.  And  wherever  religious  appearances  are  attended 
with  the  good  effects  above  mentioned,  we  desire  to  rejoice  in  and 
to  thank  God  for  them. 

"But,  on  the  other  hand,  when  persons  seeming  to  be  under  a 
religious  concern,  imagine  that  they  have  visions  of  the  human 
nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  hear  voices,  or  see  external  lights,  or 
have  faintings  and  convulsion-like  fits,  and  on  the  account  of  these, 
judge  themselves  to  be  truly  converted,  though  they  have  not  the 
scriptural  characters  of  a  work  of  God  above  described,  we  believe 
such  persons  to  be  under  a  dangerous  delusion  ;  and  we  testify  our 
utter  abhorrence  of  such  a  delusion,  wherever  it  attends  any  reli- 
gious appearances  in  any  church  or  time. 

"Now,  as  both  Synods  are  agreed  in  their  sentiments  concern- 
ing the  nature  of  a  work  of  grace,  and  declare  their  desire  and 
purpose  to  promote  it,  different  judgments  respecting  particular 
matters  of  facts  ought  not  to  prevent  their  union  ;  especially  as 
many  of  the  present  members  have  entered  into  the  ministry,  since 
the  time  of  the  aforesaid  religious  appearances. 

"  Upon  the  whole,  as  the  design  of  our  union  is  the  advance- 
ment of  the  Mediator's  kingdom,  and  as  the  wise  and  faithful  dis- 
charge of  the  ministerial  functions  is  the  principal  appointed  means 
for  that  glorious  end;  we  judge  that  this  is  a  proper  occasion  to 
manifest  our  sincere  intention  unitedly  to  exert  ourselves  to  fulfil 
the  ministry  we  have  received  of  the  Lord  Jesus.     Accordingly  we 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  281 

unanimously  declare  our  serious  and  fixed  resolution,  by  divine  aid, 
to  take  heed  to  ourselves  that  our  hearts  be  upright,  our  discourse 
edifying,  and  our  lives  exemplary  for  purity  and  godliness ;  to  take 
heed  to  our  doctrine  that  it  be  not  only  orthodox,  but  evangelical 
and  spiritual,  tending  to  awaken  the  secure  to  a  suitable  concern 
for  their  salvation,  and  to  instruct  and  encourage  sincere  Chris- 
tians ;  thus  commending  ourselves  to  every  man's  conscience  in  the 
sight  of  God ;  to  cultivate  peace  and  harmony  among  ourselves, 
and  to  strengthen  each  other's  hands  in  promoting  the  knowledge 
of  divine  truth,  and  in  diffusing  the  savour  of  piety  among  our 
people. 

"  Finally,  we  earnestly  recommend  it  to  all  under  our  care,  that 
instead  of  indulging  a  contentious  disposition,  they  would  love  each 
other  with  a  pure  heart  fervently,  as  brethren  who  profess  subjec- 
tion to  the  same  Lord,  adhere  to  the  same  faith,  worship,  and  govern- 
ment, and  entertain  the  same  hope  of  glory.  And  we  desire  that 
they  would  improve  the  present  union  for  their  mutual  edification, 
combine  to  strengthen  the  common  interests  of  religion,  and  go 
hand  in  hand  in  the  path  of  life ;  which  we  pray  the  God  of  all 
grace  would  please  to  effect,  for  Christ's  sake.     Amen." 

This  noble  declaration  is  for  our  church  what  the  declaration  of 
independence  is  for  our  country.  It  is  a  promulgation  of  first  prin- 
ciples ;  a  setting  forth  of  our  faith,  order,  and  religion,  as  an  an- 
swer to  those  who  question  us.  It  is  the  foundation  of  our  eccle- 
siastical compact,  the  bond  of  our  union.  Those  who  adhere  to 
the  principles  here  laid  down,  are  entitled  to  a  standing  in  our 
church  ;  those  who  desert  them,  desert  not  merely  the  faith  but  the 
religion  of  our  fathers,  and  have  no  right  to  their  name  or  their 
heritage.  It  is  with  grateful  exultation  we  read  that  this  declara- 
tion was  unanimously  adopted,  that  every  member  of  the  united 
Synod  set  his  hand  to  this  testimony  in  behalf  of  truth,  order,  and 
evangelical  religion.  If  our  church  will  faithfully  bear  up  this 
standard,  then  shall  she  look  forth  as  the  morning  ;  then  shall  she 
arise  and  shine,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  seen  upon  ber. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SYNOD    OF    NEW    YORK  AND    PHILADELPHIA. 

1758-88. 

Preliminary  statements.  —  General  review  of  the  acts  of  the  Synod.  —  I.  Its 
missionary  operations. — II.  Its  efforts  in  behalf  of  education. — III.  Its  stan- 
dard of  doctrine.  —  IV.  Its  discipline. — Its  exercise  of  ordinary  powers  in 
the  formation  of  new  Presbyteries ;  in  establishing  general  rules  and  de- 
ciding questions  of  conscience ;  in  the  general  supervision  of  the  Church ; 
in  the  decision  of  appeals  and  references. — V.  Its  exercise  of  extraordinary 
powers,  in  acting  by  a  commission  ;  in  the  exercise  of  presbyterial  powers  ; 
in  investing  committees  with  synodical  authority. — VI.  The  Synod's  inter- 
course with  other  churches.  —  VII.  Its  conduct  in  reference  to  the  revolu- 
tionary war. — VIII.  Formation  of  the  new  constitution. — IX.  State  of  the 
Church  during  the  existence  of  this  Synod. 

The  number  of  ministers  in  connection  with  our  church  at  the 
time  of  the  union  of  the  two  Synods,  was  not  far  from  one  hun- 
dred. Among  these  were  some  of  the  most  distinguished  men  who 
have  ever  adorned  our  annals.  The  two  Tennents,  Richard  Treat, 
Francis  Alison,  Alexander  McDowell,  John  Pierson,  David  Bost- 
wick,  Samuel  Davies,  Samuel  Finley,  John  Roan,  Matthew  Wilson, 
John  Miller,  John  Blair,  Elihu  Spencer,  George  Duffield,  Robert 
Smith,  John  Rodgers,  and  others  equally  prominent,  either  for 
learning  or  piety,  were  then  in  the  vigour  of  their  days.  To  these 
were  added  in  succeeding  years,  men  no  less  distinguished  for 
talents  or  usefulness.  In  1759,  Mr.  John  Ewing  took  his  seat  as 
a  member  of  Synod.  This  gentleman  was  Pastor  of  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia,  and  Provost  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Pennsylvania.  "  In  all  the  branches  of  science  usually 
taught  in  seminaries  of  learning,  more  particularly  in  mathematics, 
astronomy,  and  every  branch  of  natural  philosophy ;  in  the  Latin, 
Greek,  and  Hebrew  languages ;  and  in  logic,  metaphysics,  and 
(282) 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  283 

moral  philosophy,  he  was  probably  one  of  the  most  accurate  and 
profound  scholars  which  this  country  can  boast  of  having  reared."* 
In  1760,  we  find  the  names  of  James  Latta,  Alexander  McWhor- 
ter,  and  William  Kirkpatrick.  The  first  mentioned  is  the  ancestor 
of  the  family  which  has  furnished  so  many  ministers  to  our  church. 
The  second  was  long  the  excellent  pastor  of  the  church  in  Newark, 
New  Jersey ;  and  the  third,  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Brunswick,  was  distinguished  for  his  piety  and  usefulness.  In 
1761,  John  Strain  became  a  member  of  the  Synod,  and  is  still 
remembered  as  one  of  the  most  eloquent  and  impressive  ministers 
our  church  has  ever  produced.  In  1763,  we  find  the  name  of 
James  Waddell,  who  was  to  the  Virginia  church,  in  point  of  elo- 
quence, what  Patrick  Henry  was  to  the  Virginia  bar.  In  1765, 
the  Presbytery  of  Hanover  reported  the  ordination  of  David  Rice, 
a  man  of  distinguished  usefulness  in  the  southern  church.  In 
1766,  the  names  of  Robert  Cooper  and  Samuel  Blair  were  reported. 
The  former  was  a  prominent  and  pious  member  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Donegal,  and  the  latter,  a  son  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  so  dis- 
tinguished for  his  piety  and  usefulness  at  an  earlier  period  of  our 
history.  At  the  age  of  twenty-eight  or  thirty  years,  he  was  elected 
president  of  Princeton  College,  though  he  declined  the  appoint- 
ment, and  soon  sank  into  a  state  of  health  which  made  the  residue 
of  his  life  a  protracted  disease. f  In  1769,  John  McCreary  and 
Joseph  Smith  were  added  to  the  roll.  Both  of  these  were  dis- 
tinguished men.  The  latter,  pre-eminent  for  piety  and  energy,  was 
one  of  the  fathers  of  our  church  in  Western  Pennsylvania.  The 
same  year  the  Rev.  Dr.  Witherspoon,  who  had  already  obtained  in 
Scotland,  a  high  reputation  as  the  able  advocate  of  evangelical 
doctrine,  was  received  as  a  member  of  the  Synod,  and  entered 
upon  that  course  of  active  usefulness  in  the  service  of  his  adopted 
church  and  country,  which  has  rendered  his  name  so  conspicuous 
in  our  civil  and  ecclesiastical  history.  The  same  year  Dr.  Sproat 
was  received  from  the  Association  of  New  Haven  county,  Connec- 
ticut, having  been  called  to  take  charge  of  the  Second  Presbyterian 

*  Dr.  Miller's  Retrospect,  vol.  ii.  p.  372. 

f  Dr.  Green's  Sermons  and  History  of  New  Jersey  College,  p.  39G. 


284  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

church  in  Philadelphia.  In  1771,  the  name  of  John  Woodhull,  so 
long  the  faithful  pastor  of  the  church  in  Freehold,  New  Jersey, 
first  occurs  on  the  records.  This  enumeration  would  become  tedi- 
ous if  further  continued.  It  may,  therefore,  be  briefly  stated,  that 
the  names  of  Robert  Davidson  in  1774,  of  James  Power  and  John 
McMillan,  apostles  of  the  West,  and  of  John  McKnight  in  1777, 
of  Thaddeus  Dodd  and  James  Armstrong  in  1778,  of  Samuel 
Stanhope  Smith  in  1779,  of  James  Hall  in  1782,  of  Moses  Hoge 
in  1786,  occur  for  the  first  time  on  the  minutes.*  To  the  preced- 
ing list  there  are  doubtless  many  names  which  ought  to  be  added, 
whose  omission  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  writer's  limited  means  of 
information.  In  1787,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Nesbit,  the  learned  president 
of  Dickinson  college,  was  received  as  a  member  of  Synod ;  and  in 
the  same  year  the  venerable  Dr.  Green  first  took  his  seat  in  our 
highest  judicatory,  in  whose  counsels  for  a  long  succession  of  years 
he  has  been  so  eminently  influential.  The  whole  number  of  acces- 
sions to  the  Synod  during  this  period  of  thirty  years,  was  consider- 
ably more  than  two  hundred.  The  deaths  and  removals  reported 
to  the  Synod  were  about  one  hundred ;  in  many  cases,  however, 
the  decease  of  members  is  not  recorded  in  the  synodical  minutes. 

The  Synod  was  soon  called  to  weep  over  the  graves  of  some  of 
its  most  distinguished  members.  In  1760,  the  death  of  "  that 
pious,  zealous  saint  of  God,"|  the  Rev.  George  Gillespie,  is  re- 
corded. He  died  at  an  advanced  age,  having  been  received  by  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  as  a  licentiate  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Glasgow,  in  1712.  In  1761,  the  Synod  heard  of  the  decease  of 
the  eloquent,  devoted,  and  accomplished  Davies,  at  the  early  age 
of  thirty-six.  "  Heu  quam  exiguum  vitae  curriculum !  Corpore 
fuit  eximio ;  gestu  liberali,  placido,  augusto.  Ingenii  nitore,  mo- 
rum  integritate,  munificentia,  facilitate  inter  paucos  illustris.     Rei 

*  Several  of  these  ministers  were,  no  doubt,  ordained  some  years  before 
their  names  appear  upon  the  records  of  the  Synod.  During  the  war  the  at- 
tendance of  the  members,  and  even  the  reports  of  the  distant  Presbyteries, 
were  greatly  interrupted. 

f  This  language  is  used  in  reference  to  Mr.  Gillespie  by  Dr.  Francis  Alison 
in  his  sermon  delivered  before  the  Synod  in  1758. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  285 

literanae  peritus ;  theologus  promptus,  perspicax.  In  rostris,  per 
eloquium  blandum,  mellitum,  vehemens  simul,  et  perstringens,  nulli 
secundus.  Scriptor  ornatus,  sublirais,  disertus.  Praesertim  vero 
pietate,  ardente  in  Deum  zelo  et  religione  spectandus."*  In  1766, 
Davies  was  followed  to  the  grave  by  Dr.  Samuel  Finley,  his 
scarcely  less  distinguished  successor  in  the  presidency  of  Princeton 
College.  The  preceding  year  the  Synod  were  informed  that  the 
Rev.  Gilbert  Tennent  had  closed  his  long,  laborious,  and  eminently 
successful  ministry.  In  1768,  the  death  of  the  Rev.  Adam  Boyd 
was  reported.  He  was  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 
in  1724,  and  was  an  indefatigable  and  faithful  pastor  of  the  church 
of  Octarara,  and  of  two  neighbouring  congregations. f  From  this 
time  the  older  members  of  the  Synod  disappear  in  rapid  succession. 
In  1771,  there  were  seven  deaths  reported,  including  that  of  the 
excellent  Mr.  Pierson  ;  in  1772,  four,  including  that  of  Mr.  John 
Blair ;  in  1776,  Mr.  John  Roan  ;  in  1777,  Mr.  William  Tennent ; 
in  1779,  Dr.  Richard  Treat,  of  Abington;  in  1780,  Dr.  Francis 
Alison ;  so  that  but  few  of  the  original  members  of  this  Synod 
were  now  remaining. 

The  following  history  of  this  Synod,  from  the  design  of   this 

*  The  inscription  on  the  tomb  of  Davies. 

f  In  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  it  is  stated,  that  Mr. 
Thomas  Creaghead,  and  Mr.  Adam  Boyd,  "  late  from  New  England,"  were, 
received  by  the  Presbytery.  This  led  the  writer  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Boyd 
was  probably  of  New  England  origin.  He  has  learned,  however,  from  one 
of  his  descendants,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Boyd  Cross,  of  Baltimore,  that  he  was  from 
the  county  of  Antrim,  in  Ireland,  and  the  son-in-law  of  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Creaghead,  who  was  originally  from  Scotland.  Mr.  Creaghead  was  educated 
as  a  physician,  but  subsequently  studied  divinity  and  went  to  Ireland,  whence 
he  removed  with  his  family  to  this  country.  "  He  collected,  organized,  and 
built  up  seven  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  of  Lancaster  county,  Pennsylva- 
nia, besides  sacuring  the  building  of  their  houses  of  worship.  He  used 
whenever  a  n«.w  preacher  from  Ireland  or  Scotland  came  over  through  his 
influence,  or  one  who  seemed  qualified  for  his  work,  to  give  him  the  congrega- 
tion which  he  had  collected,  and  go  to  some  other  part  and  collect  another." 
Two  of  his  sons  became  ministers,  one  of  whom  was  settled  near  White  Clay 
Creek,  in  Delaware,  and  the  other  in  Lancaster  county.  The  Rev.  Matthew 
Wilson,  father  of  the  late  Dr.  J.  P.  Wilson,  married  his  grand-daughter. 


286  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

work,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  materials  at  the  command  of  the 
writer,  must  be  in  a  great  measure  purely  ecclesiastical.  That  is, 
it  must  be  in  a  good  degree  confined  to  a  classification  of  the  acts 
of  the  Synod,  with  a  view  to  exhibit  its  character  as  an  ecclesias- 
tical body.  Such  a  classification,  though  it  may  not  be  without  its 
use,  cannot  be  expected  to  possess  the  interest  which  belongs  to  the 
history  of  revivals,  or  of  polemical  discussions. 

MISSIONARY    OPERATIONS    OF    THE    SYNOD. 

With  a  field  so  extensive  as  that  embraced  within  the  bounds  of 
the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  which  was  rapidly 
filling  up  with  inhabitants,  the  burden  of  missionary  labour  which 
devolved  upon  that  body  was  very  heavy.  In  1759,  Messrs.  Kirk- 
patrick,  McWhorter,  Latta,  and  Lewis,  were  sent  to  Virginia,  to 
act  under  the  direction  of  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover.*  Jtfr.  John 
Brainerd,  then  the  pastor  of  the  church  of  Newark,  applied  to  the 
Synod  for  advice,  whether  he  should  leave  his  pastoral  charge  and 
devote  himself  anew  to  the  service  of  the  Indians.  The  Synod 
unanimously  advised  him  to  remove,  and  promised  him  the  interest 
of  the  Indian  fund  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees  of  the  college  of 
New  Jersey,  which  was  at  the  disposal  of  the  Synod.  Messrs. 
McKnight,  Beatty,  and  Latta,  also  were  directed  to  visit  the  In- 
d;ans  in  the  course  of  the  summer.  In  1760,  Messrs.  Duffield  and 
Mills  were  sent  to  Virginia  ;  and  a  general  collection  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  Indian  mission  was  ordered  to  be  taken  up.  With  the 
view  of  explaining  the  necessity  for  this  collection,  the  Synod  state 
that  in  consequence  of  the  application  of  certain  pious  ministers, 
the  society  in  Scotland  for  propagating  Christian  knowledge  had 
made  an  annual  grant,  which  was  appropriated,  first  to  David 
Brainerd,  and  afterwards  to  his  brother  John ;  who  had  continued 
to  labour  among  the  Indians  for  seven  or  eight  years.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  war  he  had  relinquished  his  mission  and  settled  in 
Newark  ;  but  when  the  province  of  New  Jersey,  having  reserved 
four  thousand  acres  of  land  for  the  Indians,  requested  him,  by  its 

*  Minutes  of  New  Yurk  and  Philadelphia,  p.  18. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  287 

governor,  to  resume  his  mission,  he  had  upon  the  advice  of  the 
Synod,  given  up  his  comfortable  settlement  and  recommenced  his 
missionary  labours.  His  support,  and  that  of  the  Indian  school, 
therefore,  now  rested  on  the  Synod,  who  called  on  all  the  churches 
to  make  a  collection  and  to  send  the  proceeds  to  Mr.  Jonathan 
Sergeant,  near  Princeton.  President  Davies  was  also  directed  to 
write  to  the  society  in  Scotland,  and  request  them  to  renew  their 
grant.* 

In  1761,  an  overture  was  made  by  Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  to  send  a 
missionary  to  the  Oneida  Indians,  the  importance  of  which  the 
Synod  acknowledged  ;  but  as  no  one  could  then  be  found  to  under- 
take the  service,  and  as  the  necessary  funds  were  not  at  command, 
the  overture  was  declined.  The  Synod  renewed  their  promises  to 
support  Mr.  Brainerd,  and  ordered  a  new  collection  for  that  pur- 
pose. Numerous  applications  were,  the  same  year,  presented  fur 
missionaries  to  North  Carolina. f 

In  1762,  a  new  order  was  made  respecting  the  Indian  mission  ; 
the  money  to  be  paid  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ewing,  in  Philadelphia,  or 
to  Mr.  Jonathan  Sergeant,  Princeton. J  Messrs.  Enoch  Green  and 
William  Tennent,  jun'r,  were  directed  to  serve  each  six  months 
under  the  direction  of  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover. § 

In  1763,  a  new  general  collection  was  ordered  for  the  Indian 
mission,  and  thirty  pounds  appropriated  to  the  support  of  the 
schoolmaster.  Mr.  Occam,  the  missionary  among  the  Oneida  In- 
dians, in  the  service  of  the  British  society,  was  taken  under  the 
care  of  the  Synod,  and  sixty-five  pounds  appropriated  to  his  use.jj 
The  same  year  a  request  was  presented  from  the  corporation  of  the 
Widows'  Fund,  that  some  missionaries  might  be  sent  to  the  frontier 
settlements,  to  ascertain  where  new  congregations  were  forming, 
and  what  could  be  done  to  promote  the  spread  of  the  gospel  among 
them,  and  the  neighbouring  Indians.  The  board,  which  held  in 
trust  a  fund  received  from  the  general  assembly  in  Scotland,  for 
propagating  the  gospel  in  this  country,  offered  to  pay  the  necessary 
expenses  of  the  proposed  mission.     In  consequence  of  this  appli- 

*  Minutes,  p.  29.  f  Ibid.  pp.  50  and  52.  J  Ibid  p.  62. 

2  Ibid.  p.  71.  ||  Ibid.  p.  80. 


288  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

cation,  the  Synod  appointed  Messrs.  Beatty  and  Brainerd  to  go  to 
the  west,  and  to  report  to  the  board  the  result  of  their  researches.* 
Mr.  Green  was  appointed  to  act  as  a  missionary  within  the  bounds 
of  the  Presbyteries  of  Lewes  and  New  Castle,  and  Mr.  William 
Tenncnt  and  Jacob  Ker  within  those  of  Hanover,  f  A  committee 
was  also  appointed  to  confer  with  the  corporation  of  the  Widows' 
Fund,  with  regard  to  a  plan  for  missionary  operations. J 

It  appears  from  the  minutes  for  1764,  that  the  mission  of  Messrs. 
Beatty  and  Brainerd  to  the  frontiers,  was  frustrated  by  the  break- 
ing out  of  the  Indian  war.§  A  new  collection  was  ordered  for  the 
support  of  Mr.  Brainerd,  and  the  interest  of  the  fund  in  the 
hands  of  the  trustees  of  New  Jersey  college  was  appropriated  to 
his  use.||  The  same  year  the  Synod,  considering  the  state  of  many 
congregations  in  the  south,  particularly  in  North  Carolina,  and  the 
great  importance  of  having  those  congregations  properly  organized, 
appointed  the  Rev.  Elihu  Spencer,  and  Alexander  McWhorter,  as 
their  missionaries  for  that  purpose  ;  that  they  might  form  societies, 
help  them  to  adjust  their  bounds,  ordain  elders,  administer  sealing 
ordinances,  instruct  the  people  in  discipline,  and  finally  direct  them 
in  their  conduct,  particularly  in  what  manner  they  should  proceed 
to  obtain  the  stated  ministry.  They  were  further  directed  to  as- 
sure the  people  that  the  Synod  had  their  interests  much  at  heart, 
and  would  send  them  candidates  and  supplies  to  the  utmost  of  their 
power. ^[  This  was  just  such  a  mission  as  that  on  which  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  sent,  that  they  might  "  set  in  order  the  things  that 
were  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city."  It  would  have 
been  perfectly  consistent  with  our  system  had  Messrs.  Spencer  and 
McWhorter  been  authorized  to  ordain  preaching  as  well  as  ruling 
presbyters,  had  there  been  any  probability  of  finding  suitable  can- 
didates for  the  sacred  office. 

In  1765,  Messrs.  Nathan  Ker,  George  Dufficld,  William  Ramsay, 
David  Caldwell,  James  Latta,  and  Robert  McMurdie,  were  ap- 
pointed to  labour  each  six  months  in  North  Carolina.**  A  collec- 
tion was  again  ordered  for  the  Indian  mission. ff 

*  Minutes,  p.  83.      f  Ibid.  p.  88.  J  Ibid.  p.  94.  \  Ibid.  p.  101. 

||  Ibid.  p.  103.         \  Ibid.  p.  108.        **  Ibid.  p.  120.        ff  Ibid.  p.  127. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  289 

In  1766,  it  was  ordered  that  every  member  of  the  Synod  should 
*,ake  subscriptions,  or  make  collections,  in  his  congregation,  and  in 
the  neighbouring  vacancies,  to  raise  a  fund  for  the  propagation  of 
the  gospel  among  the  destitute.*  It  was  also  resolved  to  sustain 
the  school  under  Mr.  Brainerd.  The  Synod  appointed  Messrs. 
Lewis, Caldwell  Chesnut,  and  Bay,  to  perform  missionary  duty  at 
the  south,  and  authorized  Mr.  C.  T.  Smith  to  itinerate  in  the  same 
quarter,  f  Messrs.  Beatty  and  Duffield  were  appointed  missionaries 
to  the  frontiers,  and  directed  to  report  to  the  corporation  of  the 
Widows'  Fund. | 

In  1767,  a  report  was  made  of  the  result  of  the  collections  of 
the  preceding  yeary  for  sending  the  gospel  to  the  poor,  when  it  was 
found  that  only  ,£112  had  been  received.  The  Synod  expressed 
their  great  sorrow  that  so  many  of  their  members  had  paid  so  little 
regard  to  the  authority  of  Synod  enjoining  a  liberality  for  so  pious 
and  important  a  purpose.  The  Presbytery  of  New  York  brought 
in  an  overture  on  the  subject  of  missions,  which  was  amended  and 
adopted.  This  overture  provided  that  there  should  be  an  annual 
collection  taken  up  in  every  congregation ;  that  every  Presbytery 
should  appoint  a  treasurer  to  receive  and  transmit  the  moneys  thus 
obtained  ;  that  the  Synod  should  appoint  a  general  treasurer  to 
whom  all  these  presbyterial  collections  should  be  sent ;  and  that 
every  year  a  full  account  of  all  receipts  and  disbursements  should 
be  printed  and  sent  down  among  the  churches.  Mr.  Richard  Treat 
was  appointed  the  synodical  treasurer  under  this  plan.  Thirty 
pounds  were  appropriated  to  the  support  of  Mr.  Brainerd's  school, 
and  twenty  as  an  addition  to  his  salary. §  A  committee  appointed 
to  confer  with  the  corporation  of  the  Widows'  Fund,  reported, 
"  that,  agreeably  to  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  church 
of  Scotland,  passed  in  the  year ,  the  money  raised  by  collec- 
tions in  the  several  congregations  of  that  church  shall  be  disposed 
of  by  the  charitable  corporation,  in  conjunction  with  a  committee 
of  the  united  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  for  the  sup- 
port and  relief  of  such  ministers  as  are,  or  shall  hereafter  be  called 
to  preach  the  everlasting  gospel  among  the  benighted  Indians,  or 

*  Minutes,  p.  146.       f  Ibid.  p.  147.       J  Ibid.  p.  148.       g  Ibid.  p.  163,  5k 
VOL.  II. — 19 


290  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

to  such  congregations  as  cannot  afford  them  maintenance."  The 
committee  added,  they  had  not  been  able  to  ascertain  the  sum 
which  was  at  the  joint  disposal  of  the  corporation  and  the  Synod  ; 
another  committee  was,  therefore,  appointed  to  ascertain  the  sum, 
and  to  assist  in  its  appropriation.*  A  petition  was  presented  from 
eight  congregations  in  North  Carolina,  that  Mr.  Spencer,  Lewis, 
McWhorter,  or  James  Caldwell,  might  be  sent  to  settle  among 
them,  offering  to  contribute  a  hundred  and  sixty  pounds  to  the  sup- 
port of  either  of  them.  These  gentlemen,  however,  all  declined 
the  invitation.  Petitions  for  supplies  were  at  the  same  time  re- 
ceived from  twenty-one  places  in  Virginia,  North  and  South  Caro- 
lina, and  Georgia.f  The  Synod  appointed  Messrs.  Bay,  Potter, 
Alexander,  McCreary,  James  Latta,  jun'r,  Anderson,  and  Jackson, 
to  visit  those  congregations,  and  spend  at  least  six  months  each 
in  their  service.  Messrs.  Beatty  and  Duffield  reported  that 
they  visited  the  frontiers,  agreeably  to  the  directions  of  the  last 
Synod,  and  found  a  great  number  of  people  exceedingly  desirous 
of  being  formed  into  congregations,  and  ready  to  do  all  that  they 
could  to  support  the  gospel,  though  they  were  in  very  distressing 
circumstances,  in  consequence  of  the  calamities  of  the  late  war. 
They  also  visited  the  Indians  upon  the  Muskingum,  a  hundred  and 
thirty  miles  beyond  Fort  Pitt,  whom  they  found  anxious  to  receive 
religious  instruction.  The  Synod  appointed  Messrs.  Brainerd  and 
Cooper  to  visit  the  frontiers,  and  to  spend  three  months  among  the 
Indians  above-mentioned. |  The  same  year  Dr.  Rodgers  was  sent 
on  a  mission  of  six  weeks  to  Albany  and  the  neighbouring  places. 

In  1768,  Messrs.  Brainerd  and  Cooper  reported,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  discouraging  accounts  brought  by  the  Indian  inter- 
preter, they  had  not  performed  the  mission  assigned  them  by  the 
last  Synod.  The  usual  appropriations  were  made  for  Mr.  Brain- 
erd's  mission ;  a  committee  consisting  of  Dr.  Alison,  Messrs.  Reed, 
Treat,  Ewing,  W.  Tennent,  Rodgers,  Brainerd,  McWhorter,  Cald- 
well, Dr.  Williamson,  Charles  Thomson,  and  the  moderator,  John 
Blair,  was  appointed  to  meet  at  Elizabethtown,  to  prepare  a  gene- 
ral plan  for  propagating  the  gospel  among  the  Indians. §    The  com- 

*  Minutes,  p.  167.        f  Ibid.  p.  171.        J  Ibid.  p.  173.        $  Ibid.  p.  179. 


IN     THE     UMTED     STATES.  2fJ  1 

mil  tee  appointed  to  confer  with  the  corporation  of  the  Widows' 
Fund,  respecting  the  money  in  their  hands  received  from  Scotland, 
and  subject  to  the  disposition  of  the  Synod,  reported  that  they  pro- 
posed several  questions  to  the  Board,  and  had  received  the  following 
answer.  "  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Board,  that  though  a  corpo- 
rate body  may  not,  in  the  management  of  its  affairs,  legally  asso- 
ciate with  others  not  in  membership,  yet  in  regard  to  the  limitation 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  we  judge  it 
our  duty  to  consult  with  the  committee,  and  mutually  to  propose 
and  agree  with  one  another  in  the  uses  to  which  the  money  is  to 
be  applied  ;  provided  always,  that  if  the  Synod  do  not  appoint  a 
committee,  or  if  that  committee  do  not  attend  upon  the  corporation, 
it  shall  not  be  hindered  to  proceed  to  business ;"  and  "  that  the 
interest  of  seven  hundred  pounds  sterling  is  to  be  disposed  of 
yearly  for  the  time  to  come,  if  there  be  occasion  for  it,  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Synod."*  These  answers  were  not 
deemed  satisfactory,  as  they  did  not  state  what  sum  had  been 
received  from  the  General  Assembly,  nor  what  use  the  Board  had 
made  of  it  since  it  came  into  their  hands.  Objection  was  also  taken 
to  the  claim  of  the  Board  of  a  right  to  dispose  of  the  money  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  the  Synod,  in  case  of  a  failure  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee.  The  Synod,  therefore,  appointe  1  another 
committee  to  endeavour  to  get  this  matter  cleared  up.  Renewed 
supplications  for  supplies  were  presented  from  the  frontiers  of 
Pennsylvania,  from  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina ;  and  the 
Synod  appointed  Messrs.  Bay,  Tate,  Anderson,  Jackson,  and  Mc- 
Creary,  for  missionary  service  in  these  several  places. f 

In  1769,  the  usual  appropriations  were  made  for  Mr.  Brainerd. 
Messrs.  John  Harris,  John  Clark,  Jeremiah  Halsey,  James  Latta, 
Jonathan  Elmore,  Thomas  Lewis,  Josiah  Lewis,  H.  J.  Balch  and  James 
Anderson,  were  appointed  as  missionaries  to  the  south.  Dr.  Alison, 
Messrs.  Treat,  Ewing,  and  Sproat,  were  appointed  a  committee  to 
examine  the  credentials  and  to  grant  certificates  to  any  licentiates 
or  ministers  from  New  England,  who  might  offer  themselves  as  mis- 
sionaries to  the  southern  provinces.     The  Synod  engaged  to  pay 

*  Minutes,  p.  181.  t  Ibid.  pp.  186,  188. 


292  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

their  missionaries  at  the  rate  of  thirty  shillings  for  every  sabbath 
they  preached.  The  Presbytery  of  New  York  was  directed  to  sup- 
ply the  poor  vacancies  on  the  frontiers  of  New  Jersey  and  New 
York  ten  sabbaths ;  and  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  those  in  Penn- 
sylvania ten  sabbaths.* 

In  1770,  numerous  applications  for  supplies  were  presented  from 
Virginia  and  Carolina,  and  Messrs.  Lewis,  Roe,  Close,  and  Mc- 
Creary,  were  appointed  to  labour  in  those  provinces.  Mr.  Patrick 
Alison  was  sent  to  Virginia,  and  Mr.  Nathan  Niles,  a  licentiate 
from  Massachusetts,  was  directed  to  labour  during  the  summer  on 
the  western  frontiers  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania, 
and  to  spend  the  winter  in  Carolina.  The  Synod  agreed  to  grant 
the  Presbyteries  of  New  York  and  Donegal  each  fifteen  pounds 
towards  the  payment  of  supplies  for  the  fron tiers. f 

In  1771,  the  usual  appropriations  were  made  for  the  support  of 
Mr.  Brainerd's  mission.  Messrs.  James  Finley,  Samson  Smith, 
Schenck,  Alexander  Miller,  Eliphalet  Ball,  Elam  Potter,  Joseph 
Potter,  and  John  McCreary,  were  appointed  as  missionaries  to  the 
south  and  west.  Fifteen  pounds  were  again  appropriated  to  each 
of  the  Presbyteries  of  New  York  and  Donegal  for  supplies.  The 
committee  of  conference  with  the  corporation  of  the  widows'  fund, 
reported  that  they  had  made  a  settlement  with  the  Board,  which 
the  Synod  subsequently  sanctioned.  The  corporation  agreed  to 
pay  the  Synod  annually  thirty  pounds,  to  be  appropriated  to  the 
aid  of  poor  ministers,  or  to  the  erection  of  churches,  or  the  pay- 
ment of  missionaries  within  the  Provinces  of  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  and  Maryland.  In  consideration  of  this  annual  sum,  the 
Synod  agreed  to  acquiesce  in  and  approve  of  such  application  of 
the  money  entrusted  by  the  Scotch  church  for  the  use  of  the  widows' 
fund,  and  all  such  other  pious  uses  as  have  hitherto  been  made  of  it 
by  the  corporation.  The  Synod  agreed  never  to  break  in  upon  the 
capital  whence  the  said  thirty  pounds  were  to  arise  by  way  of 
interest ;  but,  if  found  necessary,  the  Board  were  to  have  the  right 
to  use  the  capital  in  whole  or  in  part.  This,  however,  was  not  to 
be  done  unless  the  annuities  due  from  the  corporation  could  not 

*  Minutes,  pp.  204,  205.  f  Ibid.  pp.  213,  215,  226. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  293 

otherwise  be  paid.  The  Synod  was  to  receive  the  interest  of  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  fund  at  the  rate  of  five  per  centum,  should 
the  corporation  at  any  time  find  it  necessary  to  use  a  part  of  the 
capital.  It  was  finally  agreed  that  this  arrangement  should  put  an 
end  to  all  debates  between  the  Synod  and  the  Board  in  reference 
to  this  matter.*  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Synod  ever  succeeded 
in  finding  out  the  sum  originally  received  from  Scotland ;  or  the 
uses  to  which  it  had  hitherto  been  applied.  In  this  minute  the 
Board  say  they  considered  the  fund  as  equal  to  six  hundred  pounds, 
which,  as  nothing  is  said  to  the  contrary,  probably  means  pounds 
currency  ;  whereas  three  years  before  the  sum  was  seven  hundred 
pounds  sterling.  It  is  evident  the  corporation  considered  them- 
selves as  having  the  legal  disposal  of  the  money,  and  as  the  Synod 
acquiesced  in  their  measures,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  this  was 
acknowledged  on  their  part.  The  funds  of  the  corporation  were 
so  much  injured  by  the  depreciation  of  money  during  the  revolu- 
tionary war,  that  in  1782  the  Synod  agreed  to  remit  this  fund  to 
them  to  be  applied  to  the  ends  of  their  institution.f 

In  1772,  a  new  general  collection  was  ordered  ;  and  it  was  directed 
that  the  moneys  thus  raised  should  be  appropriated  for  the  support 
of  missionaries,  the  purchase  and  distribution  of  useful  books,  and 
the  promotion  of  the  gospel  among  the  Indians.  A  committee  was 
appointed  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  to  procure  books  and 
distribute  them  to  the  several  Presbyteries.  The  books  to  be  pur- 
chased were  Bibles,  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Vincent's 
Catechism,  Doddridge's  Rise  and  Progress  of  Religion,  Alleine's 
Alarm,  A  Compassionate  Address  to  the  Christian  World,  Watts' 
Divine  Songs,  and  the  Assembly's  Catechism.  A  pastoral  letter 
was  addressed  to  the  churches,  urging  the  importance  of  the  ends 
to  be  answered  by  the  proposed  collection  upon  their  attention. 
Missionary  appointments  were,  as  usual,  made  for  the  south  and 
west.J 

In  1773,  it  was  reported  that  Mr.  Brainerd's  school  was  discon- 
tinued the  preceding  year  for  want  of  a  teacher ;  and  forty-three 
pounds  were  appropriated  towards  his   support.     Twenty  pounds 

*  Minutes,  p.  147.  f  Ibid.  p.  383.  J  Ibid.  pp.  255,  257,  261 


294  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

were  assigned  to  each  of  the  committees  in  Philadelphia  and  New 
York  for  the  purchase  of  books ;  and  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
were  allowed  to  appropriate  fifty  pounds  of  the  money  collected 
within  their  bounds  towards  rebuilding  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  Island  of  Saba.  The  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  were  appointed 
to  send  certain  missionaries  to  the  south,  wThose  credentials  were  to 
be  signed  by  the  moderator  of  the  Synod.* 

In  1774,  the  usual  appropriations  were  made  for  Mr.  Brainerd. 
Dr.  Rodgers,  Mr.  McWhorter,  and  Mr.  Caldwell,  were  appointed 
to  visit  the  northern  part  of  New  Y'ork,  for  the  purpose  of  preach- 
ing and  organizing  congregations.  Urgent  applications  for  sup- 
plies were  received  from  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  and  North  Caro- 
lina. A  representation  was  also  presented  to  the  Synod  from  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Ezra  Stiles  and  the  Rev.  Samuel  Hopkins,  respecting  a 
mission  to  Africa,f  which  brought  up  the  subject  of  slavery.  A 
committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  an  overture  on  these  subjects 
and  report  to  the  Synod.  The  first  part  of  the  report  of  this  com- 
mittee was  adopted  as  follows :  "  The  Synod  is  very  happy  to  have 
an  opportunity  to  express  their  readiness  to  concur  with  and  assist 
in  a  mission  to  the  African  tribes,  and  especially  where  so  many 
circumstances  concur,  as  in  the  present  case,  to  intimate  that  it  is 
the  will  of  God,  and  to  encourage  us  to  hope  for  success.  We 
assure  the  gentlemen  aforesaid,  we  are  ready  to  do  all  that  is  pro- 
per for  us  in  our  station  for  their  encouragement  and  assistance." 
The  part  of  the  report  which  related  to  slavery  was  deferred  to  the 
next  meeting  of  the  Synod.  As  nothing  is  said  of  the  African 
mission  after  this,  it  is  presumed  that  the  war,  which  commenced 
the  following  year,  prevented  the  plan's  being  carried  into  effect. 
Seven  missionaries  were  sent  to  the  south  and  west,  and  the  several 
Presbyteries  were  urged  to  render  what  further  assistance  they 
could. | 

*  Minutes,  pp.  277,  288. 

f  For  a  full  account  of  the  scheme  of  Dr.  Hopkins  and  Dr.  Stiles,  to  send 
missionaries  to  Africa,  and  the  reasons  of  its  ultimate  failure,  see  Princeton 
Review  and  Biblical  Repertory,  for  April,  1840. 

t  Minutes,  pp.  295,  297,  305,  307. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  295 

In  1775,  Messrs.  Brooks,  Debow,  Keith,  Hunter,  and  Phithian, 
were  appointed  as  missionaries  to  the  south  and  west ;  and  Messrs. 
Lewis  and  Ker  to  Albany,  Charlotte,  and  Tryon  counties,  in  the 
Province  of  New  York.  Mr.  Miller  was  directed  to  supply  every 
fifth  Sabbath  until  the  next  Synod,  in  the  vacancies  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Schenectady.* 

In  1776,  Messrs.  McGill,  White,  and  Carmichael,  were  appointed 
missionaries  to  the  western  part  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Presby- 
teries of  New  Castle  and  Philadelphia  were  urged  to  send  mission- 
aries to  the  south.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  mission  under  Mr. 
Brainerd  for  several  years,  except  the  annual  order  that  he  should 
be  paid  the  interest  of  the  three  hundred  pounds  belonging  to 
the  Synod  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees  of  the  College  of  New 
Jersey,  f 

In  1777,  a  society  of  Highland  Scots  at  Southerland,  presented 
a  petition  to  the  Synod  requesting  a  supply  of  books,  and  that  the 
Rev.  Mr.  McFarquhar  might  be  appointed  to  preach  and  admin- 
ter  gospel  ordinances  among  them.  And  the  Synod  ordered  a  col- 
lection of  books  to  be  made  for  them,  and  appointed  Mr.  McFar- 
quhar to  supply  them  for  some  time.  J 

In  1778,  there  was  a  very  thinly  attended  meeting  of  the  Synod 
at  Bedminster,  Somerset  County,  New  Jersey.  The  minutes  con- 
tain no  record  in  relation  to  missions. 

In  1779,  Dr.  Witherspoon,  the  treasurer  of  the  Synod,  reported 
that  he  had  received  the  legacy  left  by  the  Rev.  Diodati  Johnson 
of  Connecticut,  for  the  aid  of  missions  to  the  southern  colonies. § 
From  a  subsequent  minute,  it  appears  that  the  money  received  was 
two  hundred  and  eighty-seven  pounds  and  a  fraction.  ||  A  member 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover,  requested  that  "  some  missionaries 
might  be  sent  to  the  State  of  Virginia  to  preach  the  gospel,  and 
especially  that  a  few  ministers  of  genius,  prudence,  and  address, 
might  spend  some  considerable  time  in  attempting  to  form  the 
people  into  regular  congregations  under  the  discipline  and  govern- 

*  Minutes,  pp.  331,  332.  f  Ibid.  p.  337,  338?  339.  J  Ibid.  p.  350. 

§  Ibid.  p.  3G0,  compare  p.  295.  ||  Ibid.  p.  377. 


296  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ment  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  to  settle  among  them,  ana 
undertake  the  education  of  youth ;  representing,  there  appears  at 
present,  in  many  parts  of  that  state,  a  vei-y  favourable  disposition 
towards  religion  in  general,  and  towards  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  particular ;  that  it  is  greatly  for  the  interest  of  the  church  to 
pay  particular  attention  to  the  southern  and  western  parts  of  this 
continent ;  that  congregations  which  may  be  formed  there  will  be 
permanent  and  fixed,  whereas  the  continual  migration  of  the  in- 
habitants in  our  interior  congregations  diminishes  their  importance 
and  threatens  their  dissolution ;  that  it  is  not  desirable  nor  to  be 
expected  that  that  extensive  country  should  continue  long  Avithout 
some  form  of  religion  ;  that  this  Synod  has  now  an  opportunity  of 
promoting  the  interests  of  religion  extensively,  which  in  a  few 
years  may  be  utterly  lost  by  the  prevalence  and  preoccupancy  of 
many  ignorant  and  irregular  sectaries."  The  Synod,  in  consequence 
of  this  representation,  earnestly  recommended  it  to  all  their  Pres- 
byteries to  turn  their  attention  to  this  subject  as  peculiarly  interest- 
ing and  important.* 

During  the  years  1780,  '81,  and  '82,  the  Synod  was  able  to  do  but 
little  in  the  service  of  missions.  In  1783,  it  was  ordered  that  every 
member  of  the  Synod  "  shall  use  his  utmost  influence  in  the  con- 
gregation under  his  inspection,  and  in  the  vacancies  contiguous  to 
it,  to  raise  contributions  for  the  purchase  of  Bibles  for  distribution 
among  the  poor,  and  that  Drs.  Ewing  and  Sproat,  and  Mr.  Duflfield, 
be  a  committee  to  receive  such  contributions,  to  purchase  Bibles, 
and  to  send  them  to  the  several  members  of  the  Synod,  who,  in  con- 
junction with  their  respective  sessions,  shall  distribute  them."f 
This  subject  was  afterwards  repeatedly  urged  upon  the  attention  of 
the  churches.^ 

ACTION    Of    THE    SYNOD    IN    REFERENCE    TO    EDUCATION    AND 
LEARNING. 

With  regard  to  education,  the  influence  «f  the  Synod  was  con- 
stantly  and  beneficially  exerted  by   insisting  on  proper    literary 

*  Minutes,  p.  362.  f  Ibid.  p.  398.  J  Ibid.  pp.  405,  414. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  297 

qualifications  in  the  candidates  for  the  ministry,  by  patronizing 
schools  and  colleges,  and  by  making  provision  for  the  education  of 
the  poor.  The  literary  institutions  in  which  the  Synod  were  parti- 
cularly interested,  were  the  academy  at  Newark,  Delaware,  and  the 
college  of  New  Jersey.  The  trustees  of  the  former  were  almost 
all  members  of  the  Synod,  on  whose  application  for  a  general  col- 
lection in  aid  of  the  institution,  it  was  agreed  to  countenance  the 
measure  and  to  recommend  the  academy  to  the  charity  of  all  the 
churches.*  In  1773,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ewing  and  Dr.  Hugh  William- 
son, a  man  distinguished  for  his  scientific  attainments,  and  an  elder 
in  the  Presbyterian  church,  visited  England  to  solicit  benefactions 
in  behalf  of  this  academy.  Though  it  owed  its  origin  to  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  and  though  at  the  time  of  its  incorporation  in  1769, 
all  its  clerical,  and,  it  is  believed,  most  of  its  lay  trustees  were 
Presbyterians,  f  it  has  of  late  years  passed  into  the  hands  of  the 
Episcopalians,  and  is  now  known  as  Newark  College.  With  the 
college  at  Princeton,  the  connection  of  the  Synod  was  far  more 
intimate,  and  the  efforts  made  for  its  support  were  frequent  and 
strenuous. 

For  some  time  after  the  union,  the  arrangement  which  had  been 
made  between  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  and  the  trustees  in  Lon- 
don, for  the  support  of  German  schools,  was  continued,  and  a  com- 
mittee annually  appointed  to  dispose  of  the  appropriation  received 
from  that  source. | 

In  1760,  a  proposition  was  made  for  the  appointment  and  sup- 
port of  a  professor  of  divinity,  which  the  Synod  recommended  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Presbyteries,  that  some  plan  might  be 
devised  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  object. §  The  following  year, 
though  the  Synod  agreed  "  to  promote  this  good  purpose,  yet  from 

*  Minutes,  p.  243. 

f  The  original  trustees  were,  Hon.  William  Allen,  Rev.  Dr.  Francis  Alison, 
Rev.  Alexander  McDowell,  Rev.  John  Ewing,  Rev.  William  McKennen,  Rev. 
Patrick  Alison,  Rev.  Matthew  Wilson,  Dr.  Hugh  Williamson,  Mr.  Charles 
Thompson,  Andrew  Allen,  Esq.,  Thomas  McKean,  Esq.,  Mr.  John  Meaee, 
and  Thomas  Evans,  Esq. 

%  Minutes,  pp.  21,  31.  \  Ibid.  p.  36. 


298  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

tlie  pressure  of  other  calls,  and  the  want  of  funds,  they  were  obliged 
to  defer  it."  Deeply  sensible,  however,  "that  the  church  suffered 
greatly  for  want  of  an  opportunity  to  instruct  students  in  the 
knowledge  of  divinity,  it  was  agreed  that  every  student,  after  he 
has  been  admitted  to  his  first  degree  in  college,  shall  read  carefully, 
on  this  subject,  at  least  one  year,  under  the  care  of  some  minister 
of  approved  character  for  his  skill  in  theology,  and  under  his  direc- 
tion shall  discuss  difficult  questions  in  divinity,  study  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  form  sermons,  lectures,  and  such  other  useful  exercises 
as  may  be  directed  in  the  course  of  his  studies.  And  it  is  enjoined 
likewise,  that  every  preacher  for  the  first  year  after  his  licensure, 
shall  show  all  his  sermons  to  some  minister  in  our  Presbyteries,  on 
whose  friendship  and  candour  he  depends,  written  fairly,  to  have 
them  corrected  and  amended.  And  as  they  are  but  young  preach- 
ers, we  are  persuaded  that  no  better  method  can  be  taken  in  present 
circumstances  to  improve  them  in  Christian  knowledge,  and  render 
them  eminently  useful  in  their  station.  It  is  also  enjoined  that  they 
preach  as  often  as  they  can  before  stated  ministers,  that  they  may 
correct  their  gestures,  pronunciation,  delivery,  and  the  like.  And 
it  is  further  enjoined,  that  all  our  ministers  and  probationers  forbear 
reading  their  sermons  from  the  pulpit,  if  they  can  conveniently."* 
In  1768,  in  consequence  of  a  request  from  the  trustees  of  the 
college  of  New  Jersey,  that  the  Synod  would  aid  in  the  support 
of  a  professor  of  divinity  in  that  institution,  a  general  collection 
was  ordered  for  that  purpose,  and  fifty  pounds  were  appropri- 
ated towards  the  salary  of  the  Rev.  John  Blair,  who  had  been 
elected  to  that  office. f  The  wants  of  the  college  at  this  time  were 
so  pressing,  that  in  the  following  year  the  Synod  appointed  a  com- 
mittee in  every  part  of  the  church,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  funds 
for  its  support.  In  consequence  of  this  application,  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Brunswick  addressed  a  memorial  to  the  churches  under  their 
care,  setting  forth  the  condition  and  claims  of  the  college.  They 
state  that  its  permanent  funds,  though  once  considerable,  had  been 
reduced  by  necessary  expenditures  to  £1300,  and  must  be  still 
further  reduced,  as  the  officers  could  not  be  supported  by  the  fees 

*  Minutes,  p.  48.  f  Ibid.  p.  186. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  299 

for  tuitiun,  without  making  those  fees  so  high  as  seriously  to  inter- 
fere with  the  usefulness  of  the  institution.  It  was  urged  that  the 
college  had  peculiar  claims  on  our  church.  Even  in  1767,  there 
were  not  fewer  than  eighty  of  her  sons  ministers  of  the  gospel  dis- 
persed through  the  several  colonies,  since  which  time  there  had  been 
considerable  addition  to  the  number.  "The  eyes,"  it  is  said,  "of 
by  far  the  greater  number  of  our  vacant  churches  are  turned  to 
that  college  for  a  supply  of  ministers;  especially  the  churches  in 
New  Jersey  and  the  southern  colonies.  That  from  the  principles 
there  taught  and  received,  we  have  reason  to  think  that  useful 
instruments  not  only  have  been,  but  from  time  to  time  will  be  raised 
up  to  propagate  the  pure  evangelical  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
to  make  a  stand  against  such  as  might  be  glad  to  abridge  our  liber- 
ties, and  to  bring  us  under  the  yoke  of  ecclesiastical  power :  instru- 
ments to  plead  the  cause  of  liberty  and  religion,  and  to  make  our 
church  respectable."*  This  effort  in  behalf  of  the  college  was 
continued  for  several  years,  with  what  result  is  not  fully  known, 
except  that  it  is  stated,  that  the  several  committees  had  "  been 
yery  diligent  and  successful. "f 

During  the  period  now  under  review,  viz. :  from  1758  to  1789, 
the  college  was  under  the  presidency  of  Mr.  Davies,  of  Dr.  Sam- 
uel Finley,  and  of  Dr.  Witherspoon.  Mr.  Davies  entered  upon 
the  duties  of  his  office  July  26,  1759,  and  died  February  4,  1761, 
so  that  he  was  president  little  more  than  eighteen  months.  Short 
as  was  his  administration,  his  talents,  and  his  devotion  to  his  duties, 
rendered  it  eminently  serviceable  to  the  institution.  His  successor, 
Dr.  Samuel  Finley,  entered  on  his  duties  as  president,  July,  1761, 
and  died  July  16,  1766.  He  was  a  native  of  Armagh  in  Ireland, 
but  removed  to  this  country  in  1734,  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  his 
age.  He  was  licensed  by  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  in  1740, 
and  preached  with  great  success,  especially  in  Pennsylvania  and  in 
the  lower  counties  of  New  Jersey.     In  1744,  he  settled  at  Not- 

*  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  p.  310. 

f  Minutes  of  Synod,  pp.  221,  237. — It  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Donegal,  that  in  1772,  five  hundred  and  fifty-five  pounds  had  been 
subscribed  within  their  bounds  for  the  college,  p.  61. 


300  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

tingham  in  Maryland,  where  he  remained  for  seventeen  years.  He 
there  instituted  an  academy  which  enjoyed  a  wide  and  deserved 
reputation.  "  He  was  justly  famed  as  a  scholar,  and  eminently 
qualified  as  a  teacher."  Dr.  John  Woodhull,  who  was  one  of  his 
pupils,  speaks  of  him  as  being  always  solemn  and  instructive,  and 
often  fervent  in  the  pulpit,  as  extensively  learned,  and  as  greatly 
beloved  and  respected  by  his  students.  Under  his  administration 
the  college  was  very  flourishing,  and  his  own  reputation  rapidly 
extending,  when  he  was  cut  down  in  the  prime  of  life.  About  a 
year  after  he  entered  on  the  presidency,  there  was  an  extensive 
revival  of  religion  in  the  college,  in  which  fifty  of  the  students, 
about  one  half  of  the  whole  number  then  in  the  institution,  were 
supposed  to  have  become  sincerely  pious. 

Dr.  Finley  died  in  July,  1766  :  the  November  following,  Dr. 
Witherspoon  was  unanimously  elected  president.  Before  this  ap- 
pointment was  known,  a  number  of  gentlemen  attached  to  that 
portion  of  the  church  which,  before  the  union  of  the  two  Synods, 
had  belonged  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  waited  upon  the  trus- 
tees to  propose  the  establishment  of  several  professorships  in  the 
college,  upon  a  plan  which  should  unite  the  whole  church  in  the 
support  of  the  institution.  The  committee  of  the  trustees  ap- 
pointed to  confer  with  these  gentlemen  reported,  that  their  propo- 
sals being  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  president's  chair 
was  vacant,  their  plan  had  been  disconcerted  by  the  appointment 
of  Dr.  Witherspoon,  and  consequently  they  could  not  answer  for 
what  their  constituents  would  do  under  these  altered  circumstances, 
but  that  they  were  nevertheless  truly  desirous  to  complete  the  pro- 
posed design.  The  committee  inquired  whether,  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  the  nomination  of  two  gentlemen  for  professorships,  viz. : 
Messrs.  Blair  and  McDowell,*  on  condition  that  funds  should  be 
raised  for  their  support,  their  constituents  would  be  satisfied."  To 
this  the  gentlemen  replied,  that,  however  desirous  they  were  to  ac- 
complish so  excellent  a  design,  they  could  not  engage  for  the  future 

*  "  These  gentlemen,  Mr.  Blair  of  the  new-side  and  Mr.  McDowell  of  the 
old-side  party,  were  both  of  high  standing  in  the  public  estimation,  and  of 
unquestionable  excellence  of  character."  —  Dr.  Green. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  301 

conduct  of  their  constituents.  The  board  taking  into  considera- 
tion the  above  report  came  to  the  following  resolution  :  "  Whereas 
it  is  an  object  of  the  greatest  concern,  that  union  and  the  strictest 
harmony  among  all  the  friends  and  patrons  of  religion  and  sound 
literature,  might  be  promoted  by  every  proper  method,  and  that 
this  institution  may  have  every  possible  advantage  of  increasing  its 
reputation,  and  the  cause  of  learning ;  and  as  there  appears  reason 
to  expect  great  and  happy  consequences,  both  to  the  interests  of 
religion  and  of  this  seminary,  from  putting  into  execution  the  gene- 
ral design  of  the  proposals  made,  they  will  gladly  do  every  thing 
in  their  power  to  accomplish  the  said  end ;  and  accordingly  declare 
themselves  greatly  desirous  that  a  sufficiency  of  moneys  by  sub- 
scription or  otherwise,  might  be  obtained  to  accomplish  this  noble 
design  ;  and  are  cheerfully  willing  to  join  in  any  particular  method 
that  can  be  devised  for  raising  the  necessary  sums.  For  though 
this  board  would  gladly  proceed  to  the  election  of  professors  with- 
out delay,  were  their  funds  sufficient  to  support  such  an  additional 
expense,  yet  they  judge  it  by  no  means  expedient  to  take  that  step 
before  they  have  a  certain  medium  for  their  support." 

The  following  year  this  negotiation  was  renewed.  A  number  of 
gentlemen  again  attended  the  meeting  of  the  board,  and  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  confer  with  them.  This  committee  re- 
ported that  they  found  them  and  their  constituents  still  very  desir- 
ous of  concurring  with  the  trustees  of  the  college  in  the  establish- 
ment and  support  of  a  faculty,  and  promising  to  unite  their  utmost 
endeavours  to  raise  the  necessary  funds ;  that  the  said  gentlemen 
being  asked  by  the  committee,  whether  the  appointment  of  all  or 
of  any  of  the  particular  persons  to  professorships  named  and  re- 
commended in  their  proposals,  was  intended  as  a  term  of  their  ac- 
ceding to  and  assisting  in  the  establishment  proposed,  replied,  that 
it  was  not  intended  to  make  the  appointment  of  any  particular 
persons  named  by  their  constituents,  a  term  of  the  proposed  union, 
but  that  any  other  gentlemen  who  might  be  deemed  qualified  for 
their  offices,  and  indiscriminately  chosen  without  regard  to  party 
distinctions,  would  be  acceptable  to  them.  The  board  taking  the 
subject    into    consideration,    were    unanimously    of    the    opinion, 


302  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

that  the  constitution  of  a  faculty,  to  consist  of  well-qualified  pro- 
fessors, to  be  chosen  without  any  regard  to  little  party  differences, 
would  greatly  subserve  the  interest  of  religion  and  learning  in  this 
seminary.  They,  therefore,  determined  to  proceed  to  such  an  elec- 
tion ;  and  accordingly  the  following  day  chose  the  Rev.  John  Blair 
professor  of  divinity  and  moral  philosophy ;  Dr.  Hugh  Williamson 
professor  of  mathematics  and  natural  philosophy ;  Mr.  Jonathan 
Edwards  professor  of  languages  and  logic  ;  and,  as  Dr.  Wither- 
spoon,  in  consequence  of  the  unwillingness  of  his  wife  to  leave 
Scotland,  had  declined  the  presidency,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Blair  was 
chosen  president  and  professor  of  rhetoric  and  metaphysics.  For 
the  want  of  funds  these  appointments  were  conditional,  and,  with 
the  exception  of  that  of  Mr.  John  Blair,  were  not  to  take  effect 
for  a  year,  and  in  the  meantime,  the  college  was  to  be  conducted 
by  Mr.  Blair  and  three  tutors.  Before  the  expiration  of  the  year 
the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  Dr.  Witherspoon's  accepting  the  presi- 
dency was  removed,  and  Mr.  Samuel  Blair,  having  generously  with- 
drawn his  name,  Dr.  Witherspoon  was  re-elected,  and  arrived  in 
this  country  August,  1768,  and  was  inaugurated  as  president  on 
the  seventeenth  of  that  month.* 

The  deficiency  in  the  pecuniary  resources  of  the  college  pre- 
vented the  above  plan  being  carried  into  effect.  Even  Mr.  Blair, 
to  relieve  the  funds  of  the  institution,  resigned  his  office  as  profes- 
sor of  divinity,  and  devolved  the  duties  upon  Dr.  Witherspoon. 
Under  the  auspices  of  the  latter,  the  college  soon  began  to  flourish, 
its  course  of  instruction  was  enlarged,  its  students  increased,  and 
the  funds  necessary  for  its  support  were  supplied.     The  revolution- 

*  The  above  details  respecting  the  college  of  New  Jersey  are  derived  from 
Dr.  Green's  history  of  the  college,  already  repeatedly  referred  to.  It  would 
seem  that  the  clergy  of  what  was  called  the  old-side,  in  the  Synod,  took  no 
direct  part  in  the  negotiations  for  the  enlargment  of  the  faculty  of  the  col- 
lege. At  least  on  both  occasions  the  delegation  which  waited  on  the  trustees 
was  composed  of  laymen  ;  in  1766,  they  were  Messrs.  George  Bryan,  John 
Tohnson,  William  Alison,  James  Mease,  and  Samuel  Purviance  ;  and  in  1767, 
Messrs.  George  Bryan,  William  Alison,  John  Chevalier,  John  Boyd,  and  Jobn 
-'allace. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  303 

ary  war,  however,  soon  put  a  stop  to  this  course  of  improvement. 
The  college  was,  in  a  great  measure,  disbanded,  and  though  a  clasa 
graduated  in  each  year,  the  number  of  annual  graduates  was  often 
not  more  than  four  or  five.  When  peace  returned,  prosperity  re- 
turned to  the  college,  and  it  continued  to  reward  the  labours  of  its 
pious  founders,  by  contributing  largely  to  the  supply  of  educated 
ministers  to  the  church.  The  number  of  clergymen  educated  at 
this  college  before  1789,  was  two  hundred  and  twenty-nine. 

In  1771,  a  plan  for  the  education  of  poor  and  pious  young  men 
for  the  ministry,  was  laid  before  the  Synod  by  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Castle,  which  was  approved.  This  plan  provided  that  every 
vacant  congregation  receiving  supplies,  should  pay  two  pounds  to- 
wards an  education  fund,  every  minister  one  pound,  and  that  vol- 
untary subscriptions  from  other  quarters  should  be  solicited.  Every 
Presbytery  was  to  appoint  a  treasurer,  to  examine  candidates,  to 
direct  their  studies,  &c.  Every  beneficiary  was  to  spend  one  year 
after  licensure  in  the  service  of  the  Presbytery  by  which  he  had 
been  educated ;  and  in  case  he  did  not  enter  the  ministry,  he  was 
to  give  a  bond  to  refund  the  money  expended  in  his  behalf  within 
five  years.*  It  appears  from  the  minutes  for  the  following  year, 
that  the  Presbyteries  of  New  York,  New  Brunswick,  and  the  se- 
cond of  Philadelphia,  had  fully  complied  with  the  above  recommend- 
ation, and  that  several  others  had  done  so  partially. f 

In  1775,  the  question  was  proposed,  whether  a  Presbytery  could, 
with  propriety,  take  any  candidate  upon  trial  unless  furnished  with 
a  diploma  from  some  college.  The  Synod  the  following  year  an- 
swered, that  the  advantages  of  a  public  education  rendered  it  highly 
expedient  that  all  candidates  should  finish  their  academical  studies 
in  some  public  institution,  yet  as  the  Presbyteries  were  the  proper 
judges  of  the  requisite  qualifications  of  their  candidates,  it  was 
not  intended  to  preclude  from  admission  to  trial  all  who  had  not 
enjoyed  those  advantages. £ 

In  1783,  at  the  request  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  the 
question  was  considered,  whether  a  person  without  a  liberal  educa- 

*  Minutes,  p.  242.  f  Ibid.  p.  273.     See  also  p.  294. 

t  Ibid.  pp.  318,  and  342. 


304  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

tion  may  be  taken  on  trials,  or  licensed  to  preach  the  gospel  ? 
which  was  answered  in  the  negative.*  And  in  1785,  the  same 
question  came  up  in  a  different  form,  viz. :  whether,  in  the  present 
state  of  the  church  in  America,  and  the  scarcity  of  ministers  to 
fill  our  vacancies,  the  Synod  or  Presbyteries  ought  to  relax  in  any 
degree  in  the  literary  qualifications  required  of  intrants  into  the 
ministry  ?  and  it  was  carried  in  the  negative  by  a  great  majority. "f 
These  decisions,  considering  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  certainly 
reflect  great  credit  upon  the  Synod. 

The  same  year  it  was  proposed  that  no  candidate  should  be  taken 
on  trial  until  he  shall  have  employed  two  years  at  least  in  the  study 
of  divinity,  after  his  having  passed  the  usual  course  of  a  liberal 
education.  This  proposition,  after  discussion,  was  laid  over  to  the 
following  year,  and  then,  "considering,"  as  the  Synod  say,  "the 
present  circumstances  of  our  churches,  it  was  decided  in  the  nega- 
tive. "4  It  was  at  the  same  time  "enjoined  on  every  Presbytery 
to  subject  every  candidate  on  trials  for  the  ministry,  to  an  accurate 
examination  on  the  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church." 

The  attention  of  the  Synod,  however,  was  not  confined  to  can- 
didates for  the  ministry,  but  "  considering  the  education  of  youth, 
and  their  being  early  instructed  in  the  principles  of  religion,  as 
one  of  the  most  useful  means  of  promoting  the  influence  of  religion 
in  our  churches,  they  resolved,  that  it  be  enjoined  on  every  Pres- 
bytery, in  appointing  supplies  to  their  vacant  congregations,  to  take 
order  that  every  vacant  congregation  within  their  limits  be  care- 
fully catechized  at  least  once  in  every  year,  in  the  same  manner  as 
is  required  by  the  order  of  our  church  in  congregations  supplied 
with  regular  pastors  ;  and  that  the  ministers  appointed  to  this  duty 
be  required  to  render  an  account  of  their  fidelity  in  this  respect. 

"  Resolved,  also,  that  it  be  enjoined  on  all  our  congregations  to 
pay  a  special  regard  to  the  good  education  of  children,  as  being 
intimately  connected  with  the  interests  of  religion  and  morality  ; 
and  that,  as  schools,  under  a  bad  master  and  careless  management, 
are  seminaries  of  vice  rather  than  of  virtue,  the  session,  corpora- 
tion, or  committee  of  every  congregation  be  required  to  endeavour 

*  Minutes,  p.  396.  f  Ibid.  p.  425.  %  Ibid.  p.  427. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  305 

to  establish  schools  in  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  most  conve- 
nient for  the  people ;  that  they  be  particularly  careful  to  procure 
able  and  virtuous  teachers  ;  that  they  make  the  erection  and  care 
of  schools  a  part  of  their  congregational  business,  and  endeavour 
to  induce  the  people  to  support  them  by  contributions,  being  not 
only  the  most  effectual,  but,  in  the  end,  the  cheapest  way  of  sup- 
porting them ;  that  the  Presbyteries  appoint  particular  members, 
or,  if  possible,  committees,  to  go  into  vacant  congregations  to  pro- 
mote similar  institutions ;  that  the  corporation,  session,  or  com- 
mittee of  the  congregation,  visit  the  school  or  schools  at  least  once 
in  three  months,  to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of  the  master,  and  the 
improvement  of  the  children,  and  to  observe  particularly  his  care 
to  instruct  them  at  least  one  day  in  the  week,  in  the  principles  of 
religion ;  that  the  Presbyteries,  in  appointing  ministers  to  supply 
vacant  congregations,  require  it  as  an  indispensable  part  of  their 
duty,  to  visit  at  the  same  time  the  schools,  and  require  at  the  next 
meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  an  account  of  their  fidelity  in  this 
respect,  and  of  the  state  of  the  schools ;  and  that  in  these  schools 
effectual  provision  be  made  for  the  education  of  the  children  of  the 
poor ;  and  that  at  the  visitation  of  the  schools  one  or  two  of  the 
most  ingenuous  and  virtuous  of  the  poor  children  be  selected 
annually,  in  order  to  give  them  a  more  perfect  education,  and 
thereby  qualify  these  ingenuous  charity-scholars  to  become  after- 
wards useful  instructors  in  our  charity-schools."* 

THE    STANDARD    OF    DOCTRINE    IN    THE    SYNOD. 

The  standard  of  doctrine  established  and  maintained  during  this 
period  was  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  In  the  first 
article  of  the  plan  of  union,  it  is  said,  "  both  Synods  having  always 
approved  and  received  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  as  an  orthodox  and  excellent 
system  of  Christian  doctrine,  we  do  still  receive  the  same  as  the 
confession  of  our  faith."  In  all  the  Presbyteries  every  licentiate, 
or  new  member,  was  required  to  adopt  this  confession.     The  Synod 

*  Minutes,  pp.  428,  429. 

vol.  ii. — 20 


306  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

allowed  of  no  departure  from  this  rule.  In  17G4,  the  Presbytery 
of  Suffolk  were  blamed  for  "neglecting  to  record  their  candidates 
adopting  our  public  standards  at  licensure,  though  they,  inform  us," 
it  is  added,  "that  it  is  matter  of  constant  practice."* 

Thus  also  the  Synod  itself,  in  receiving  either  a  new  member,  or 
a  new  Presbytery,  insisted  on  the  same  condition.  In  1765,  it  is 
recorded  that  the  Rev.  Jonathan  Leavitt,  "  after  adopting  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  as  the  confession  of  his  faith,  and 
having  promised  to  conform  himself  to  the  Westminster  Directory 
for  worship  and  government,  was  received  as  a  member  of  the 
Synod,  and  was  advised  to  put  himself  under  the  care  of  some  one 
of  our  Presbyteries. "f  In  1763,  a  request  was  presented  from  a 
Presbytery  in  New  York,  to  the  east  of  the  North  River,  to  be 
incorporated  with  the  Synod ;  and  it  was  "  agreed  to  grant  their 
request,  provided  that  they  agree  to  adopt  our  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  and  engage  to  observe  the  Direc- 
tory as  a  plan  of  worship,  discipline,  and  government,  according  to 
the  agreement  of  this  Synod. "|  This  Presbytery  complied  with 
these  stipulations,  and  was  accordingly  admitted. §  In  answer  to  a 
similar  application,  made  in  1770,  from  the  Presbytery  of  South 
Carolina,  the  Synod  replied,  "  the  only  conditions  which  we  require, 
are,  that  all  your  ministers  acknowledge  and  adopt,  as  the  standard 
of  doctrine,  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
and  the  Directory  as  the  plan  of  your  worship  and  discipline."  || 

That  this  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  strict  and 
unequivocal,  is  strongly  asserted  both  by  Presbyteries  and  Synod. 
In  1768,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  having  a  missionary 
in  Nova  Scotia,  had  occasion  to  write  a  letter  to  a  gentleman  in 
that  country,  in  which  they  say :  "  We  hear  that  our  Synod  has 
been  injuriously  represented  in  your  parts,  as  being  lax  in  nrinciple 
and  discipline.  But  we  assure  you,  sir,  the  charge  is  utterly 
groundless.  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  received  here 
without  equivocation,  and  in  the  true  and  proper  sense  of  the  words. 
The  doctrines  of  grace  are  truly  taught,   and  discipline  is  regu- 

*  Minutes,  p.  107.  f  Ibid.  p.  127.  X  Ibid.  p.  91. 

2  Ibid.  p.  130.  ||  Ibid.  p.  223. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  307 

larly  and  faithfully  exercised."  At  the  same  time  they  wrote  to 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Murdock,  a  seceding  minister  in  Nova  Scotia,  to 
whom  they  say :  "  We  assure  you,  dear  sir,  the  public  standards  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland  are  our  standards.  We  receive  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  in  the  true  grammatical  sense  of  the 
words,  and  are  strictly  Calvinistic.  And  the  Westminster  Direc- 
tory is  the  model  of  our  worship  and  government."*  These  letters 
were  signed  by  John  Blair,  as  moderator,  and  William  Kirkpatrick, 
as  clerk. 

In  like  manner  a  committee  of  the  Synod,  in  their  name  and 
with  their  sanction,  declared,  in  1786,  "  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  adopt,  according  to  the  known  and  established 
meaning  of  the  terms,  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  as  the 
confession  of  their  faith ;  save  that  every  candidate  for  the  gospel 
ministry  is  permitted  to  except  against  so  much  of  the  twenty-third 
chapter  as  gives  authority  to  civil  magistrates  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion. The  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  considers  the  church 
of  Christ  as  a  spiritual  society,  entirely  distinct  from  the  civil 
government,  and  having  a  right  to  regulate  their  own  ecclesiastical 
policy,  independently  of  the  interposition  of  the  magistrate.  The 
Synod  also  receive  the  Directory  for  public  worship,  and  the  form 
of  church  government,  recommended  by  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly, as  in  substance  agreeable  to  the  institutions  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. This  mode  of  adoption  we  use  because  we  believe  the 
general  platform  of  our  government  to  be  agreeable  to  the  sacred 
Scriptures ;  but  we  do  not  believe  that  God  has  been  pleased  to 
reveal  and  enjoin  every  minute  circumstance  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment and  discipline  as  not  to  leave  room  for  orthodox  churches  of 
Christ,  in  these  minutiae,  to  differ  with  charity  from  each  other. 

"  The  rules  of  our  discipline,  and  the  form  of  process  in  our 
church  judicatures,  are  contained  in  Pardovan's,  alias  Stewart's 
Collections,  in  conjunction  with  the  acts  of  our  own  Synod,  the 
power  of  which  in  matters  merely  ecclesiastical,  we  consider  as 
equal  to  the  power  of  any  Synod  or  General  Assembly  in  the 
world.     Our  church  judicatures,  like  those  in  the  church  of  Scot- 

*  Minutes  of  New  Brunswick  Presbytery,  pp.  283  and  286. 


308  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCII 

land,  from  which  we  derive  our  origin,  are  Church  Sessions,  Presby- 
teries, and  Synods,  to  which  it  is  now  in  contemplation  to  add  a 
national  and  Genernl  Assembly."* 

That  the  Synod  really  maintained  as  well  as  professed  this  stan- 
dard of  doctrine,  is  evident  from  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Har- 
ker,  to  which  reference  has  already  been  repeatedly  made  in  this 
history.  That  gentleman  was  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Brunswick,  and  by  them  his  case  was  referred  to  the  Synod,  who 
appointed  a  committee,  of  which  Mr.  Pierson-was  the  chairman,  to 
meet  with  and  endeavour  to  convince  him  of  his  errors.  This 
committee  subsequently  reported  that  they  were  happy  to  find,  from 
Mr.  Harker's  explanations,  that  his  views  were  correct  as  to  some 
of  the  points  on  which  he  was  supposed  to  be  erroneous,  but  that 
as  to  others,  he  had  departed  from  our  standards.  The  Synod 
considered  this  report  so  encouraging,  that  they  directed  him  to  go 
to  Nottingham  and  converse  with  Messrs.  Samuel  and  James  Fin- 
ley,  John  Blair,  Robert  and  Samson  Smith,  and  on  his  return,  with 
Messrs.  Treat,  Tennent,  Ewing,  and  Alison,  in  Philadelphia,  in 
hopes  that  his  conversion  might  be  completed.  These  hopes,  how- 
ever, were  disappointed.  Mr.  Harker  published  a  book  in  which 
he  set  forth  and  defended  his  peculiar  views.  When  the  Synod 
met  in  1762,  they  committed  this  book  to  Messrs.  Spencer,  Rod- 
gers,  Blair,  Laurence,  McDowell,  Wilson,  and  Robert  Smith,  with 
directions  to  examine  it  and  make  a  report  to  the  Synod.  This 
report  was  not  presented  until  the  following  year,  when  it  appeared 
that  Mr.  Harker  taught,  "1st.  That  the  covenant  of  grace  is  in 
such  a  sense  conditional,  that  fallen  mankind,  in  their  unregenerate 
state,  by  the  general  assistance  given  to  men  under  the  gospel, 
have  a  sufficient  ability  to  fulfil  the  conditions  thereof,  and  so  by 
their  own  endeavours  to  insure  to  themselves  regenerating  grace 
and  all  saving  blessings.  2d.  That  God  has  bound  himself  by 
promise  to  give  them  regenerating  grace,  upon  their  fulfilling  what 
he,  (Mr.  Harker,)  calls  the  direct  conditions  of  obtaining  it;  and 
upon  the  whole,  makes  a  certain  and  infallible  connection  between 
their  endeavours  and  the  aforesaid  blessings.     3d.   That  God's  pre 

*  Minutes,  p.  443. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  309 

science  of  future  events  is  previous  to,  and  not  dependent  on  his 
decrees  ;  that  his  decrees  have  no  influence  on  his  own  conduct ; 
and  that  the  foresight  of  faith  is  the  ground  of  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion. It  is  further  observed,  that  he  often  uses  inaccurate,  unin- 
telligible, and  dangerous  forms  of  expression,  which  tend  to  lead 
people  into  false  notions  in  several  important  matters ;  as  that 
Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  in  the  second  cove- 
nant as  well  as  the  first;  that  the  regenerate  are  not  (?)  in  a  state 
of  probation  for  heaven,  and  such  like. 

"  The  Synod  judged  that  these  principles  are  of  a  hurtful  and 
dangerous  tendency,  giving  a  false  view  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
perverting  it  into  a  new-modelled  covenant  of  works,  and  misrepre- 
senting the  doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees  as  held,  by  the  best  re- 
formed churches ;  and,  in  fine,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and 
our  approved  standards  of  doctrine."  Mr.  Harker  was  then  called 
in  and  questioned  on  many  particulars,  and  the  Synod  after  refer- 
ring to  their  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  convince  him  of  his 
errors,  say  that  he  appeared  "  to  be  rather  confirmed  and  resolute 
in  propagating  his  opinions  among  the  people,  by  a  variety  of  me- 
thods, to  the  great  scandal  of  the  church,  seducing  and  perplexing 
the  unwary  and  unstable ;  and  as  he  has  departed  from  the  truth, 
and  opposed  this  church  in  some  important  articles,  and  misrepre- 
sented the  church  of  Scotland,  his  doctrine  and  practice  have  a 
schismatical  tendency.  On  the  whole,  though  the  exclusion  of  a 
member  be  grievous,  yet  we  judge  that  the  said  Mr.  Samuel  Har- 
ker cannot  consistently  be  continued  a  member  of  this  body,  and 
accordingly  declare  him  to  be  disqualified  for  preaching  or  exer- 
cising his  ministry  in  any  congregation  or  vacancy  under  our  care ; 
and  do  hereby  order  that  all  be  duly  warned  not  to  receive  his  doc- 
trine, nor  admit  his  ministration,  until  it  shall  please  God  to  con- 
vince him  of  his  mistakes,  and  bring  him  to  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  truth,  and  recover  him  from  the  error  of  his  ways."*  As 
the  Synod  was  thus  strict  in  enforcing  adherence  to  our  standards, 
the  fact  that  this  is  the  only  case  of  discipline  for  erroneous  doc- 
trine recorded  on  their  minutes,  during  the  period  from  1758  to 

*  Minutes,  pp.  88,  89. 


310  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

1789,  is  satisfactory  proof  of  the  general  orthodoxy  of  the  body 
It  is  probable  there  never  was  a  period  of  equal  length  in  the  his- 
tory of  our  church,  in  which  there  was  such  a  general  and  cordial 
agreement  among  our  ministers  on  all  doctrinal  subjects. 

FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT. ORDINARY  POWERS. 

In  illustrating  the  constitution  of  the  Synod,  we  shall,  agreeably 
to  the  plan  hitherto  pursued,  arrange  its  acts  under  the  general 
heads  of  ordinary  and  extraordinary  ;  meaning  by  ordinary,  such 
as  are  conformed  to  our  present  usages  ;  and  by  extraordinary, 
such  as  differ  from  them  in  a  greater  or  less  degree. 

To  the  former  of  these  classes  belong  of  course  the  formation 
and  alteration  of  Presbyteries.  The  Synod  was  called  upon  imme- 
diately after  its  formation  to  enter  upon  this  business,  in  accord- 
ance with  one  of  the  provisions  of  the  plan  of  union.  It  was 
agreed  that  the  Presbyteries  of  Suffolk  and  New  York  should  con- 
tinue as  they  were ;  that  Messrs.  Cowell  and  Guild  should  be  an- 
nexed to  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  ;  that  Messrs.  Cross, 
G.  Tennent,  Alison,  Treat,  Chesnut,  Martin,  Beatty,  Greenman, 
Hunter,  Ramsay,  Lawrence,  and  Kinkead,  should  constitute  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  ;  that  Messrs.  Wilson,  Miller,  Tuttle, 
and  Henry,  should  be  the  Presbytery  of  Lewes ;  that  the  first  and 
second  Presbyteries  of  New  Castle,  and  the  Presbytery  of  Done- 
gal, should,  for  the  present,  continue  as  they  were ;  and  that 
Messrs.  Cre  ;ghead,  Black,  Craig,  Miller,  Davies,  Todd,  Henry, 
Wright,  Brown,  and  Martain,  should  be  the  Presbytery  of  Han- 
over.* 

The  following  year  Messrs.  Robert  Smith,  John  Roan,  Samsor 
Smith,  and  John  Hoge,  were  attached  to  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal. 
and  the  first  and  second  Presbyteries  of  New  Castle  were  united, 
with  the  provision  that  these  changes  should  not  interfere  with 
the  liberties  of  the  several  congregations  within  the  bounds  of  those 
Presbyteries,  provided  for  in  the  plan  of  union. f 

In  1762,  in  consequence  of  a  difference  of  opinion  among  tho 
*  Minutes,  pp.  7  and  8.  f  Ibid.  p.  15. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  311 

members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  as  to  the  examination 
of  candidates  for  the  ministry  on  their  personal  experience  in  reli- 
gion, Messrs.  Robert  Cross,  Francis  Alison,  John  Ewing,  John 
Symington,  and  James  Latta,  were  formed  into  a  Presbytery  for 
one  year,  to  be  called  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia.*  In 
1763,  the  congregations  of  West  Nottingham  and  Little  Britain, 
together  with  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Hunt  and  Strain,  with  their  con- 
gregations,  were  set  off  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  to  that 
of  Donegal. f  The  same  year  the  Presbytery  of  Duchess  in  New 
York,  was  received,  as  already  mentioned.  The  question  whether 
the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  should  be  continued,  "was 
deferred  from  year  to  year  until  1766,  when  it  was  voted  to  allow 
it  to  remain.  Against  this  decision  several  members  dissented  for 
substantially  the  following  reasons.  1.  The  decision  has  an  ob- 
vious appearance  of  disunion,  and  has  a  schismatical  tendency,  and 
will  be  likely  to  perpetuate  party  distinctions.  2.  As  it  is  the 
sense  of  the  Synod  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Presbyteries  to  inquire 
into  a  candidate's  experimental  acquaintance  with  religion,  it  in- 
volves this  body  in  a  self-contradiction  to  erect  a  Presbytery  which 
expressly  refuses  it.  3.  While  nothing  is  imposed  on  persons  in 
point  of  practice,  which  they  in  their  conscience  judge  sinful,  and 
they  are  not  restrained  from  doing  their  duty,  the  rights  of  con- 
science are  not  violated,  though,  they  being  a  minority,  a  matter 
in  judicature  shall  be  carried  against  them  by  vote.  Therefore  it 
is  vain  to  urge  the  rights  of  conscience  in  such  cases.  And  for 
any  to  signify  that  they  will  not  be  subject,  even  in  such  cases,  to 
the  regulations  of  Synod,  but  if  contradicted  will  violently  break 
off,  is  to  prefer  the  private  rights  of  individuals  to  the  public  rights, 
and  will  destroy  all  governing  authority  in  the  body.  4.  It  is  a 
very  bad  precedent  which  may  be  pleaded  by  others  for  the  divi- 
sion of  Presbyteries,  and  by  this  means  congregations  now  united 
may  be  divided,  and  the  formation  of  new  societies  prevented. 
These  reasons  were  signed  by  Messrs.  William  Tennent,  Charles 
McKnight,  John  Blair,  William  Tennent,  Jun.,  Azael  Roe,  John 
Carmichael,  Robert  Smith,  Jacob  Ker,  David  Rose,  Nathan  Ker, 

*  Minutes,  p.  74.  t  Ibid.  p.  93 


312  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

and  Simon  Ilorton.  Before  the  schism  of  1741,  the  old-si  „le  mem- 
bers, so  to  call  them,  being  the  majority  of  the  Synod,  were  the 
advocates  of  its  authority,  and  the  new-side  members  the  remon- 
strants against  its  exercise.  After  the  union  in  1758,  the  new-side 
members  being  the  majority,  became  the  advocates  of  authority, 
and  the  old-side  members  remonstrants.  Of  the  correctness  of 
this  statement,  the  reader  will  find  in  the  sequel  many  illustra- 
tions. In  the  present  instance  we  find  the  Messrs.  Tennent,  Blair, 
•fee,  complaining  that  the  governing  authority  of  the  Synod  would 
be  destroyed  if  its-  regulations  might  be  disobeyed,  except  in  cases 
in  which  they  were  deemed  sinful.  And  as  the  members  of  the 
New  Brunswick  Presbytery  before  the  schism  pleaded  conscience 
for  their  disobedience  to  an  act  of  Synod,  so  the  second  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia  made  a  similar  plea  on  the  present  occasion. 

The  same  diiference  of  opinion  which  caused  this  separation  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  produced  still  greater  difficulties 
in  that  of  Donegal.  In  1765,  the  Synod  having  maturely  con- 
sidered the  situation  of  affairs  in  that  Presbytery,  determined  to 
erect  the  members  living  on  the  west  side  of  the  Susquehanna, 
together  with  the  Rev.  Andrew  Bay,  into  a  new  Presbytery,  to  be 
called  the  Presbytery  of  Carlisle,  and  to  attach  the  remaining  mem- 
bers to  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle.*  Against  this  decision,  the 
Rev.  Messrs.  Tate,  Beard,  Elder,  Samson  Smith,  McMurdie,  and 
Steel,  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  remonstrated ;  be- 
cause it  gave  them  no  relief  from  the  grievances  of  which  they 
complained,  and  because  it  was  unjust  to  dispose  of  a  Presbytery 
without  consulting  its  members,  or  allowing  them  to  vote.  The 
Synod  consented  to  review  the  case,  but  adhered  to  their  decision, 
saying,  that  those  brethren  were  so  much  interested  in  the  matter, 
that  they  had  no  right  to  a  vote  in  reference  to  it,  though  they 
ought  to  have  been  consulted  on  the  subject.  The  Synod  further 
expressed  the  hope  that  they  would  find  their  grievances  removed 
in  their  new  connection,  and  stated  that  the  Presbytery  of  New 
Castle  was  so  small,  that  the  members  to  the  east  of  the  Susque- 
hanna ought  to  be  joined  to  it,  and  that  it  should  be  henceforth 
called  the  Presbytery  of  Lancaster,  f 

*  Minutes,  p.  123.  f  Ibid.  p.  126. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  313 

Messrs.  McDowell  and  Evving  entered  their  dissent  from  the  fore- 
going decision,  because  it  made  the  situation  of  the  dissatisfied 
brethren  worse  than  it  was  before  ;  because  they  had  unjustly  been 
deprived  of  a  right  to  vote  in  the  case ;  because  the  Presbytery  of 
Donegal  had  been  destroyed  without  allowing  one  of  its  members 
any  voice  in  the  affair ;  and  because  this  proceeding  was  inconsis- 
tent with  the  plan  of  union,  which  provided  that'  the  Presbyteries 
then  subsisting  should  not  be  united,  except  when  it  was  found  for 
edification.  The  next  year,  (1766,)  Messrs.  Tate  and  Beard  pre- 
sented a  petition  to  have  this  decision  reviewed.  The  Synod  ac- 
cordingly put  it  to  vote,  whether  their  former  judgment  should  be 
reversed,  and  by  a  great  majority  decided  that  it  should  stand.  It 
was  then  proposed  that  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  as  it  existed 
before  the  last  Synod,  should  be  restored,  those  members  excepted 
who  had  been  set  off  to  the  Carlisle  Presbytery,  and  it  was  decided 
in  the  negative.  Another  expedient  was  proposed,  viz. :  that  the 
dissatisfied  members  of  the  old  Donegal  Presbytery  should  be 
allowed  for  one  year  to  join  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia. This  also  was  rejected  by  a  great  majority.  The  following 
protest  against  these  decisions  was  entered  on  the  minutes :  "  We 
are  obliged,  (though  with  great  grief,)  to  enter  our  dissent  from, 
and  declare  our  protest  against  the  conduct  and  votes  of  this  judi- 
cature respecting  the  late  Donegal  Presbytery,  for  such  reasons  as 
these,  '1.  Because  our  distressed  brethren  always  declared  a  scruple 
of  conscience  as  the  foundation  of  their  petition  and  behaviour,  viz. : 
That  they  could  not  in  conscience  submit  to  the  examination  of  the 
hearts  or  experiences  of  candidates  in  the  way  voted  by  the  Synod, 
as  they  esteemed  it  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  to  common  sense, 
and  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Protestant  churches  ;  consequently, 
whether  well  or  ill  informed,  it  was  a  matter  that  could  not  be  voted 
away.  2.  Because  it  appeared  very  untender  and  unbrotherly  to 
deny  that  those  members  could  be  conscientious  in  the  affair,  when 
they  declared  they  were  so.  We  cannot  judge  what  matters  will 
affect  other  men's  consciences.  3.  Because  even  the  smallest  mat- 
ter, if  imposed  against  the  rights  of  conscience,  obliges  the  injured 
to  leave  the   communion.     To  exclude   men  from  exercising   the 


314  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

power  of  ordination,  unless  they  submit  to  it  in  a  way  contrary  to 
their  judgment,  is  such  an  imposition  ;  and,  therefore,  the  schism, 
in  consequence  hereof,  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  imposers,  and  not 
to  those  who  are  obliged  to  withdraw.  4.  Because  by  the  spirit  of 
the  plan  of  union,  Presbyteries  were  not  to  be  joined,  unless  for 
edification  ;  but  this  modelling  evidently  tends  to  ruin  and  destruc- 
tion. 5.  Because  the  Synod  seem  to  act  too  arbitrary  a  part  by 
forcing  members  into  Presbyteries  without  their  consent,  and  the 
consent  of  their  congregations.  6.  Because  these  violent  and  pre- 
cipitate votes  have  rent  the  church  of  Christ,  alas !  too  much 
divided  already,  to  the  joy  of  our  enemies,  the  grief  and  distress 
of  all  sincere  Christians,  and  the  reproach  of  the  Christian  name, 
when  only  exchanging  a  member  or  two  in  two  Presbyteries  might 
have  prevented  the  breach.' 

"  These  reasons,  together  with  those  entered  by  two  members, 
(Messrs.  McDowell  and  Ewing,)  against  a  judgment  of  the  last 
Synod  respecting  the  alteration  of  Presbyteries,  prevail  with  us  to 
enter  this  our  protest,  whereby  we  exonerate  our  consciences  in 
order  to  continue  in  your  communion,  and  declare  before  God  and 
the  world,  that  we  are  free  from  blame  in  this  whole  procedure. 
Matthew  Wilson,  John  Ewing,  Patrick  Alison,  Francis  Alison." 

In  consequence  of  the  above  votes,  Messrs.  Joseph  Tate  and 
John  Beard  brought  in  the  following  document :  "  To  the  Rev. 
Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  :  We  the  subscribers  humbly 
beg  leave  to  show,  that  we  much  desire  to  be  in  union  and  friend- 
ship with  this  Rev.  body,  and  would  not  knowingly  be  the  real 
authors  of  any  discord  in  the  church  of  Christ ;  yet  the  determina- 
tions of  the  Synod  consequent  on  our  petition  presented  last  year, 
and  again  to  this  present  meeting,  seem  so  grievous  and  oppressive 
to  us,  and  threatening  to  the  credit  and  interests  of  religion,  that 
we  find  ourselves  obliged  to  declare  to  this  Rev.  Synod  that  we 
cannot  submit  to  them,  and  we  hereby  decline  all  authority  and 
jurisdiction  of  this  body,  and  that  no  judgment  or  determination 
thereof  shall  bind  us  or  affect  our  persons  or  ministry,  until  these 
differences  of  sentiment  be  removed  by  better  light,  and  satisfac- 
tory means  be  found  to  reconcile  and  unite  us  with  this  Rev.  body 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  815 

again  ;  and  as  we  earnestly  desire  and  pray  for  this,  we  reserve  to 
ourselves  and  expect  the  liberty  at  any  time  respectfully  to  offer  such 
proposals  as  we  may  think  likely  to  answer  that  end;  and  upon 
our  satisfying  the  Rev.  Synod,  or  they  us,  to  return  to  our  enjoy- 
ment of  our  privileges  with  them.  And  in  the  mean  time  we  shall 
endeavour  to  carry  respectfully  towards  this  Rev.  Synod,  avoiding 
whatever  might  unnecessarily  inflame  unchristian  passions,  or  tend 
to  hinder  the  influence  of  our  brethren  in  the  gospel,  and  expect 
to  be  mutually  treated  by  our  brethren  as  ministers  of  Christ." 
They  then  briefly  assign  the  reasons  for  their  declining,  which  are 
substantially  those  given  in  support  of  the  protest  above  mentioned, 
except  the  third,  in  which  they  complain  that  "  the  proceedings  of 
the  Synod  in  this  as  well  as  in  many  other  affairs,  appear  plainly 
calculated  to  bear  down  one  part  of  this  united  Synod,  and  sup- 
press their  influence,  contrary  to  the  equality  and  rights  of  mem- 
bers, and  to  the  nature  and  whole  professed  design  of  our  union."* 

The  next  day,  Messrs.  Richard  Treat  and  Read  brought  in  an 
overture  as  a  good  expedient  for  the  peace  of  the  Synod,  and  the 
satisfaction  of  the  brethren  complaining,  viz. :  that  the  Presbytery 
of  Donegal  should  be  restored  to  its  former  state,  as  before  the  last 
Synod,  with  the  members  since  settled  within  their  bounds.  The 
Synod  agreed  to  this  proposal,  and  also  revived  the  late  Presby- 
tery of  New  Castle,  which  was  to  meet  according  to  its  last  adjourn- 
ment when  under  the  name  of  the  Presbytery  of  Lancaster.f 

Unhappily  this  conciliatory  measure  did  not  satisfy  the  discon- 
tented portion  of  the  Donegal  Presbytery.  In  1767,  they  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  Synod,  saying,  that  they  were  willing  to  return 
to  communion  with  the  church,  provided  the  Synod  would  erect 
them  into  a  Presbytery  by  themselves.  This  request  was  refused  ; 
but  in  order,  it  is  said,  "  to  remove  the  uneasiness  of  our  brethren, 
and  to  promote  harmony  and  peace,  we  appoint  Messrs.  Buel,  Rod- 
gers,  Horton,  Kirkpatrick,  Beatty,  Blair,  and  Miller,  a  committee 
to  bring  in  an  overture  relative  to  their  petition."  This  committee 
made  a  report  in  which  they  expressed  great  disapprobation  of  the 
conduct  of  those  brethren ;  and  yet,  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism, 

*  Minutes,  p.  140.  f  Ibid.  p.  143. 


316  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

they  proposed  that  they  should  be  erected  into  a  separate  Presby- 
tery, with  the  proviso,  that  if  any  of  them  should  remove  out  of 
the  bounds  of  that  Presbytery,  they  should  become  members  of  the 
Presbytery  within  whose  limits  they  resided.  This  proposal,  how- 
ever, was  rejected  by  a  considerable  majority.* 

In  1768,  the  dissatisfied  brethren  presented  the  same  petition, 
which  was  again  rejected  by  a  very  strong  vote.  The  next  day 
Mr.  Tate  informed  the  Synod  that  though  he  was  not  authorized 
to  make  the  proposal,  he  had  no  doubt  his  brethren  would  be  satis- 
fied, if  the  Synod  would  distribute  them  among  the  Presbyteries 
of  Donegal,  New  Castle,  and  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia. The  Synod,  though  they  expressed  strong  disapprobation 
of  their  past  conduct,  agreed  to  authorize  the  Presbytery  of  Done- 
gal to  receive  Mr.  Samuel  Thompson  and  Mr.  Lang,  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Castle  to  receive  Mr.  S.  Smith  and  Beard,  and  the 
second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  to  receive  Messrs.  Tate,  Elder, 
Steel,  and  McMurdie ;  provided  first,  that  this  regulation  should 
not  subject  any  vacancies  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Donegal  to  any  other  Presbytery,  nor  should  such  vacancies,  with- 
out express  permission,  apply  to  any  other  Presbytery  for  supplies ; 
and  secondly,  if  any  of  the  said  brethren  comply  with  this  regula- 
tion, they  shall  previously  and  expressly  withdraw  their  declining 
document,  entered  in  1766,  and  without  such  withdrawal  they  shall 
not  be  received  as  members  either  of  the  Synod  or  of  any  of  the 
Presbyteries. f  These  provisos  were  just  and  reasonable,  but  it  is 
well  to  remark  the  tone  of  authority  in  the  Synod  which  they  in- 
dicate. The  Rev.  Mr.  Strain  protested  against  the  above  decision, 
and  Messrs.  John  Roan,  John  Slemmons,  Robert  Cooper,  and 
George  Duffield  dissented,  assigning  their  reasons.  These  reasons 
are  such  as  might  be  anticipated,  viz.  that  the  decision  sanctioned 
the  bad  temper  and  irregular  conduct  of  the  dissatisfied  brethren, 
set  a  bad  precedent,  tended  to  strengthen  the  second  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  which,  in  the  judgment  of  many  members  of  the 
Synod  ought  not  to  exist  at  all,  &c.J  It  appears  from  the  minutes 
for  the  following  year,  that  this  plan  was  carried  into  effect,  and 

*  Minutes,  pp.  157,  159,  106.         f  ^id-  P-  183.         t  Ibid.  pp.  184,  185. 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  317 

tills  second  schism  was  thus  healed.  This  measure  was  evidently 
carried  through  by  the  members  at  a  distance  from  the  scene  of 
contention,  as  Mr.  Strain  and  all  the  dissentients  were  members  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Donegal. 

In  1770,  on  a  petition  from  certain  members  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Hanover,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Hugh  McCaden,  Henry  Patillo, 
James  Criswell,  David  Caldwell,  Joseph  Alexander,  Hezekiah 
James  Balch,  and  Hezekiah  Balch,  were  formed  into  a  Presbytery 
to  be  called  the  Presbytery  of  Orange.* 

In  1781,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Joseph  Smith,  John  McMillan,  James 
Power,  and  Thaddeus  Dodd,  were  constituted  the  Presbytery  of 
Redstone. f  These  were  the  pioneers  of  western  Pennsylvania,  and 
were  a  noble  set  of  men. 

In  1784,  the  Rev.  Joseph  Alexander,  Francis  Cummings,  James 
Edmunds,  John  Harris,  Thomas  Reese,  and  John  Simpson,  were 
set  off  from  the  Presbytery  of  Orange,  and  constituted  the  Pres- 
bytery of  South  Carolina. | 

In  1785,  at  the  request  of  Messrs.  Samuel  Doak,  Hezekiah 
Balch,  and  Charles  Cummings,  the  Presbytery  of  Abingdon  was 
formed  out  of  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover,  to  be  bounded  by  New 
River  on  the  side  next  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover,  and  by  the 
Apalachian  mountains  on  that  next  the  Presbytery  of  Orange. § 

In  1786,  an  extensive  remodelling  of  the  Presbyteries  took  place 
preparatory  to  the  division  of  the  Synod,  and  the  adoption  of  the 
new  constitution.  The  Presbytery  of  Abingdon  was  divided  into 
two  parts,  the  one  to  consist  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Cummings,  Heze- 
kiah Balch,  John  Casson,  Samuel  Doak,  and  Samuel  Houston,  to 
be  known  as  the  Presbytery  of  Abingdon  ;  the  other  to  consist  of 
Rev.  David  Rice,  Thomas  Craighead,  Adam  Rankin,  Andrew 
McClure,  and  James  Crawford,  to  be  known  as  the  Presbytery  of 
Transylvania.  The  Presbytery  of  Hanover  was  divided  into  two 
parts,  the  one  consisting  of  the  Rev.  Richard  Sanchey,  John  Todd, 
James  Waddell,  William  Irvine,  John  B.  Smith,  James  Mitchell, 
John  D.  Blair,  and  Daniel  McCalla;  to  be  known  as  the  Presby- 
tery  of   Hanover ;    and   the   other   consisting   of  the   Rev.    John 

*  Minutes,  p.  224.        f  Ibid.  p.  378.         J  Ibid.  p.  408.       §  Ibid.  p.  423. 


318  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

Brown,  William  Graham,  Archibald  Scott,  James  McConnel,  Ed- 
ward Crawford,  Benjamin  Erwin,  John  Montgomery,  William  Wil- 
son, Moses  Hoge,  John  McCrie,  Samuel  Carrick,  and  Samuel  Shan- 
non, to  be  known  as  the  Presbytery  of  Lexington.  It  was  also 
agreed  that  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  be  divided  into  two,  one  of 
which  to  consist  of  the  Rev.  John  Slemmons,  James  Hunt,  Stephen 
Balch,  and  Isaac  Keith,  with  Dr.  Patrick  Alison,  of  the  late  second 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Rev.  George  Luckey,  from 
the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  to  be  known  as  the  Presbytery  of 
Baltimore  ;  and  the  other  to  consist  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Thompson, 
John  Hoge,  Hugh  Magill,  Robert  Cooper,  James  Martin,  James 
Lang,  John  Craighead,  John  King,  Hugh  Vance,  Thomas  McFar- 
ren,  John  McKnight,  Dr.  Robert  Davidson,  John  Black,  Samuel 
Dougall,  John  Lynn,  David  Beard,  Samuel  Waugh,  Joseph  Hen- 
derson, Matthew  Steven,  and  James  Johnston,  with  the  Rev.  John 
Elder,  and  Robert  McMurdie,  from  the  late  second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  to  be  known  as  the  Presbytery  of  Carlisle.  The  Rev. 
Colin  McFarquhar,  late  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  was  annexed 
to  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle.  The  distinction  between  the 
first  and  second  Presbyteries  of  Philadelphia  was  abolished. 

GENERAL    REGULATIONS;     AND    CASES    OP    CONSCIENCE. 

Under  the  head  of  ordinary  powers  of  the  Synod  is  to  be  referred, 
not  only  the  authority  which  it  exercised  of  resolving  questions  of 
conscience,  and  of  determining  whether  a  given  doctrine  was  consist- 
ent with  our  standards,  but  also  of  laying  down  rules  of  discipline. 
In  reference  to  this  latter  point,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
right  which  by  our  present  constitution  is  reserved  to  the  majority 
of  the  Presbyteries,  of  forming  constitutional  rules,  was  formerly 
exercised  by  the  Synod,  in  which  all  the  Presbyteries  met  as  one 
body.  Of  the  exercise  of  this  right  by  the  original  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  and  by  each  of  the  two  Synods  during  the  schism, 
many  examples  have  already  been  given.  In  the  united  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  this  authority  continued  to  be  exer- 
cised until  the  last.     The  most  common  method  of  proceeding,  was 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  319 

for  some  member,  or  Presbytery,  to  submit  an  overture  or  query, 
for  the  decision  of  the  Synod ;  and  the  determination  either  con- 
stituted a  rule  for  the  guidance  of  the  Presbyteries,  or  expressed 
the  refusal  of  the  Synod  to  make  the  overture  into  a  rule.  Thus, 
in  the  preceding  pages,  when  speaking  of  the  subject  of  education, 
we  had  occasion  to  notice  that  at  one  time  it  was  determined  that 
all  candidates  for  the  ministry  should  study  divinity  for  at  least  one 
year  after  the  completion  of  their  academical  course ;  at  another, 
the  proposition  that  they  should  be  required  to  study  two  years, 
was  rejected.  Again,  the  proposal  that  every  candidate  should  be 
required  to  produce  a  college  diploma,  before  being  taken  on  trial, 
was  rejected ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  proposition  that  a  liberal 
education  should  be  dispensed  with,  was  repeatedly  discarded. 

In  1760,  five  such  propositions  or  queries  were  submitted  to 
the  Synod.  The  first  inquired  how  many  ministers  must  unite  in 
a  request  to  the  moderator  of  the  commission,  or  of  a  Presby- 
tery, in  order  to  oblige  him  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  judicatory. 
The  Synod  decided  that,  in  case  of  emergency,  the  moderator  him- 
self might  call  the  judicatory  together ;  or,  on  the  application  of 
any  two  members  in  the  case  of  a  Presbytery,  or  of  four  or  five  in 
the  case  of  the  commission,  provided  that  due  notice  were  given  to 
all  the  members  of  the  occasion,  time,  and  place  of  the  meeting.* 

The  second  related  to  the  choice  of  a  moderator,  with  regard  to 
which  the  Synod  agreed,  that  no  moderator  had  a  right  to  preside 
in  any  of  our  Presbyteries,  except  in  virtue  of  the  choice  of  the 
members  then  met ;  but  that  Presbyteries  might  elect  the  same 
person  for  moderator,  from  time  to  time,  if  they  thought  proper. f 

The  third  was,  whether  a  candidate  might  apply  to  what  Pres- 
bytery he  pleased  for  examination  and  licensure.  The  Synod 
decided  that  any  student  had  a  right,  in  our  present  situation,  to 
study  with  any  divine  of  reputation  connected  with  the  Synod, 
according  to  a  former  act ;  but  when  he  offered  himself  for  exami- 
nation, he  should  apply  to  that  Presbytery  within  whose  bounds  he 
had  generally  resided.  For  sufficient  reasons,  however,  such  stu- 
dent might  be  remitted  from  one  Presbytery  to  another,  in  which 

*  Minutes,  p.  39.  t  Ibid-  P-  50. 


320  PRESBYTERIAN    CIIURCII 

case  the  latter  was  not  to  receive  him  on  a  mere  certificate  of 
church  membership,  but  should  require  him  to  produce  testimonial? 
from  his  former  Presbytery,  or  from  several  neighbouring  ministers, 
recommending  him  as  a  candidate  of  exemplary  piety  and  holiness 
of  conversation.* 

The  fourth  question  was  to  this  effect,  whether  a  minister  ordained 
either  abroad,  or  by  some  ecclesiastical  body  in  this  country,  not 
in  connection  with  our  church,  should  be  received  by  our  Presby- 
teries, on  his  producing  proper  testimonials,  provided  he  adopts  our 
Confession,  and  promises  subjection  in  the  Lord  ?  This  question 
was  answered  twice;  first  in  1764,  and  again  in  1765.  These 
answers  differ  very  little  from  each  other.  The  latter  is  as  follows: 
"  It  is  undoubtedly  the  right  of  Presbyteries  to  converse  with  any 
probationer  or  minister  from  foreign  parts,  as  far  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  give  them  satisfaction,  and  not  receive  him  implicitly  on  a 
certificate,  however  fair  and  regular,  together  with  his  general  pro- 
fession of  adopting  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms. 
But  if  such  probationer  or  minister  shall  come  from  a  church  or 
judicature  generally  suspected,  or  known  to  be  erroneous,  or  lax 
and  negligent  with  respect  to  the  moral  conduct  or  piety  of  their 
candidates  or  members ;  or  if  they  shall  come  from  any  number  of 
ministers,  who  may  convene  without  any  regular  constitution,  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  licensing  or  ordaining  particular  persons ;  in  that 
case  a  certificate  from  such  a  judicature,  and  such  a  general  pro- 
fession of  the  parties  respecting  the  Confession  of  Faith,  are  still 
less  satisfactory,  and  render  it  highly  necessary  for  the  Presbytery 
to  which  such  application  shall  be  made,  to  be  more  particular  and 
exact  in  examining  the  principles  of  such  probationer  or  minister 
before  they  admit  him  or  employ  him  in  their  bounds."! 

The  fifth  question  was,  whether  it  was  regular  for  our  students 
of  divinity  to  go  into  New  England  or  elsewhere  for  licensure,  with 
the  intention  of  returning  to  officiate  within  our  bounds.  To  this 
it  was  answered :  "  Though  the  Synod  entertain  a  high  regard  for 
the  associated  churches  of  New  England,  yet  we  cannot  but  judge 
that  students  who  go  to  them,  or  to  any  other  than  our  own  Pres- 

*  Minutes,  p.  104.  f  Ibid.  p.  116,  compare  p.  104. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  321 

bytcries  to  obtain  license,  in  order  to  return  and  officiate  among  us, 
act  very  irregularly,  and  are  not  to  be  approved  or  employed  by 
our  Presbyteries ;  as  hereby  we  are  deprived  of  the  right  of  trying 
and  approving  the  qualifications  of  our  own  candidates ;  yet  if  any 
case  may  happen  wherein  such  a  conduct  be  thought  necessary  for 
the  greater  good  of  any  congregation,  it  shall  be  laid  before  the 
Presbytery  to  which  that  congregation  belongs  and  approved  by 
them."* 

In  1762,  an  overture,  or  as  it  was  called  a  case  of  conscience, 
was  introduced  into  Synod  respecting  the  examination  of  candi- 
dates for  the  ministry  on  the  subject  of  experimental  religion,  which 
gave  rise  to  considerable  difficulty.  This  was  a  subject  of  dispute 
between  the  two  parties  in  the  church  before  the  schism,  though  it 
was  never  prominently  presented.  Both  parties  professed  to  agree 
as  to  the  necessity  of  experimental  religion  as  a  qualification  for 
the  sacred  office ;  and  as  to  the  duty  of  the  Presbytery  to  satisfy 
themselves  that  every  candidate  possessed  this  qualification.  Mr. 
Thompson,  in  his  sermon  on  conviction  of  sin,  says :  "  It  is  the 
indispensable  duty  of  every  one  who  would  aspire  to  the  sacred 
office,  to  pray  and  labour  in  the  greatest  earnest  for  true  sanctify- 
ing grace,  and  all  other  necessary  qualifications  to  fit  him  for  his 
work ;  and  to  propose  single  ends  and  views  to  himself  in  under- 
taking it.  And  it  is  no  less  the  duty  of  those,  whose  part  it  is  to 
call  and  ordain  men  to  that  work,  to  take  all  possible  care  to  inquire 
into  the  saving  grace  as  well  as  other  qualifications  in  the  persons 
to  be  ordained ;  and  the  neglect  of  either  is  a  heinous  sin,  and  of 
a  dreadful  tendency ;  no  doubt  a  graceless  ministry  is  an  awful 
plague  and  scourge  to  any  people. "t  In  answer  to  the  complaint 
of  Mr.  G.  Tennent  and  of  Mr.  Blair,  against  their  brethren  for 
admitting  men  to  the  ministry  "  without  questioning  them  about 
their  Christian  experience,"  he  says:  "We  are  directed  by  the 
Westminster  Assembly  to  inquire  touching  the  grace  of  God  in  the 
candidate,  and  if  he  be  of  such  holiness  of  life  as  is  requisite  in  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,"  and  adds:  "I  am  sure  as  to  the  practice 
of  some  Presbyteries,  that  it  is  not  ordinary  or  habitual  in  their 

*  Minutes,  p.  105.  f  Sermon  on  Convictions,  p.  73  ;  printed  in  1741. 

VOL.  II. — 21 


322  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

practice  to  neglect  this  part  of  their  work."  And  in  stronger  lan- 
guage :  "  That  we  allow  ourselves  to  neglect  all  inquiry  about  the 
grace  of  God  in.  candidates,  is  a  downright  slander  and  falsehood. 
That  in  some  instances  we  may  be  deficient,  is  readily  acknow- 
ledged, as  well  as  in  many  other  parts  of  our  work."*  And  in  the 
sixth  article  of  the  plan  of  union  unanimously  adopted  by  both 
Synods,  it  was  agreed,  "  That  no  Presbytery  shall  license  or  ordain 
to  the  holy  ministry  any  candidate,  until  he  give  them  competent 
satisfaction  as  to  his  learning  and  experimental  acquaintance  with 
religion."  It  was  not,  therefore,  either  as  to  the  necessity  of  this 
experimental  acquaintance  with  religion,  or  as  to  the  duty  of  the 
Presbytery  to  examine  into  this  point,  that  the  difference  of  opinion 
existed.  It  was  as  to  the  proper  method  of  ascertaining  whether 
the  candidate  possessed  this  experimental  knowledge  or  not.  The 
one  side  contended  that  a  profession  of  faith,  a  holy  life  and  con- 
versation, and  a  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  evidences  of  experi- 
mental religion,  and  of  the  criteria  between  true  and  false  religious 
exercises,  was  all  that  could,  with  propriety,  be  demanded.  The 
other  insisted  on  a  detail  of  the  exercises  of  the  candidate's  own 
heart,  or  of  his  personal  experience.  To  this  it  was  objected,  that 
such  a  detail  was  unsatisfactory,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  mere  tes- 
timony of  the  man  in  his  own  behalf;  and  that  it  was  unauthorized. 
"No  man  or  judicature  on  earth,"  says  Mr.  Thompson,  "hath  a 
right  to  know  my  spiritual  state  further  than  a  profession  of  the 
faith  of  the  gospel,  and  owning  subjection  to  its  precepts,  go. 
None  has  a  right  to  know  the  secret  intercourse  between  me  and 
my  God,  or  between  me  and  my  own  wicked  heart  and  Satan's 
temptations.  These  things  are  among  the  religious  secrets  which 
I  have  a  right  to  conceal  or  to  discover,  as  Christian  prudence  or 
discretion  shall  direct,  "f 

It  is  one  of  the  anomalies  in  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  this  period, 
that  Mr.  Tennent,  who  was  so  strenuous  for  the  examination  of 
candidates  for  the  ministry,  as  to  their  own  personal  experience,  and 
in  whose  Presbytery  the  difficulty  on  this  subject  arose  and  led  to  its 
division,  and  for  a  time  threatened  a  new  schism,  was  equally  stren  • 

*  Government  of  the  Church,  pp.  24,  25,  47.  f  Ibid.  pp.  24,  25,  47. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  323 

uous  in  his  opposition  to  Edwards'  doctrine,  that  none  but  those 
who  gave  satisfactory  evidence  of  true  piety,  ought  to  be  admitted 
to  the  Lord's  Supper.  "  The  terms  of  church  fellowship,"  he  says, 
"  which  God  has  fixed,  are  soundness  in  the  main  doctrines  of  re- 
ligion and  a  regular  life."  To  support  his  opinion,  he  remarks : 
"  The  aforesaid  terms  that  Christ  has  fixed  may  be  certainly  known, 
and  therefore  they  are  rational.  But  some  of  the  novel  and  super- 
stitious terms  which  some  good  men  have  invented,  though  with  a 
pious  design,  are  irrational,  because  they  cannot  be  certainly  known, 
unless  it  be  supposed  that  churches  are  infallible  in  their  determina- 
tions ;  a  claim  which  the  Protestants,  some  enthusiasts  excepted, 
have  not  pretended  to,  at  least  in  words  ;  but  the  Bible  is  a  stranger 
to  such  terms  of  communion  ;  I  know  not  one  passage  in  it,  that 
proves  converting  grace,  or  the  church's  judgment  of  it,  to  be  a 
term  of  Christian  communion  of  divine  appointment.  If  any  think 
otherwise,  let  them  prove  it,  and  I  will  give  an  attentive  ear  and 
readily  submit  to  their  instruction  and  correction.  But  I  humbly 
conceive  they  will  find  it  a  hard  task  without  producing  another 
Bible."*  In  another  place  he  says  :  "Nor  does  our  church  pretend 
to  any  right  or  authority  of  excluding  any  from  the  Lord's  Supper 
upon  the  precarious  foundation  of  their  judgment  concerning  men's 
inward  experiences  of  a  work  of  invisible  grace.  No ;  the  compi- 
lers of  our  Confession  had  more  judgment  than  to  advance  such  an 
indefensible  notion.  See  the  answer  to  the  one  hundred  and  seven- 
ty-third question  in  the  Larger  Catechism.  '  May  any  who  profess 
faith  and  desire  to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper  be  kept  from  it  ? 
Answer :  Such  as  are  found  to  be  ignorant  or  scandalous,  notwith- 
standing their  profession  of  faith  and  desire  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  may  and  ought  to  be  kept  from  that  sacrament  by  the 
power  which  Christ  has  left  in  his  church,  until  they  receive  instruc- 
tion and  manifest  reformation.'     It  is  pleasant  to  see  the  amiable 

*  Irenicum  Ecclesiasticum,  p.  79.  To  the  passage  thus  quoted,  he  adds  the 
note,  "  I  cannot  find  the  Christians  of  the  first  three  centuries  made  gracious 
experiences,  or  the  church's  judgment  about  them,  terms  of  communion. 
They  made  no  inquiries  about  them  as  to  baptism  ;  and  all  that  were  baptized 
and  free  from  church  censure  came  to  the  sacrament." 


324  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

modesty,  the  necessary  caution  and  good  judgment  of  our  church, 
in  declining  to  assume  the  bench,  and  make  her  uncertain  opinion 
of  men's  spiritual  experiences,  the  term  of  their  admission  either 
to  the  initiatory  or  confirming  seal  of  the  new  covenant.  No ;  she 
well  understood  and  remembered  that  ancient,  scriptural,  rational, 
and  equitable  maxim,  ecclesia  non  judicat  de  internis,  that  the 
church  has  no  business  to  judge  of  internals,  or  to  make  her 
opinion  of  men's  spiritual  experiences,  the  ground  of  her  judicial 
proceedings  towards  them."*  This  was  the  doctrine  which  one 
portion  of  the  Synod  applied  to  the  admission  or  rejection  of  can- 
didates for  ordination. 

The  question  was  brought  up  in  1761,  by  an  overture  to  the  fol- 
lowing effect:  "As  holiness  is  a  qualification  requisite  in  a  gospel 
minister :  Quere,  whether  it  be  the  duty  of  a  Presbytery,  or  pos- 
sible for  them  to  make  candidates  give  a  narrative  of  their  personal 
exercises,  and  upon  this  form  a  judgment  of  their  real  spiritual 
state  towards  God,  as  the  ground  of  admitting  or  rejecting  them?"f 
The  consideration  of  this  question  was  deferred  to  the  following 
year.  It  was  then  agreed  that  the  persons  proposing  a  query  had 
a  right  to  explain  it,  and  to  state  the  precise  point  which  they 
wished  decided.  The  authors  of  the  overture  were  accordingly 
allowed  to  present  the  following  exposition  of  their  views  : 

"  A  case  of  conscience  being  proposed  to  the  Synod  concerning 
the  means  of  obtaining  competent  satisfaction  with  candidates' 
experimental  acquaintance  with  religion,  and  the  Synod  finding 
some  difficulty  in  settling  precisely  the  matter  to  be  considered, 
having  ordered  some  of  us  who  desire  the  case  should  be  examined, 
to  bring  in  a  distinct  statement  of  the  matter,  we  give  the  follow- 
ing as  our  sense  of  the  article  in  our  plan  of  union,  relating  to  the 
affair,  and  of  the  case  of  conscience  proposed  to  consideration. 

"  According  to  the  sixth  article  of  our  plan  of  union,  we  think 
and  declare  that  no  Presbytery  should  license  or  ordain  any  candi- 
date, until  they  have  competent  satisfaction  concerning  his  learn- 
ing, experimental  acquaintance  with  religion,  skill  in  divinity  and 
cases  of  conscience  ;  and  so  profess  ourselves  against  admitting  any 
*  Irenicum,  p.  27.  *■       t  Minutes,  p.  50. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  325 

to  that  sacred  office  without  such  satisfaction,  as  to  his  learning, 
obtained  by  proper  trials ;  but  what  these  must  be,  the  article  does 
not  particularly  determine. 

"  And  as  exemplary  holiness  is  essential  to  the  ministerial  char- 
acter, we  declare  all  appointed  warrantable  means  are  to  be  used 
to  secure  a  godly  ministry,  and  allow  none  to  be  admitted  to  that 
important  work,  but  such  as  make  serious  profession  of  their  faith 
in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him,  and  give  proper  visible  evidence 
of  their  sincerity  herein,  by  exemplary  holiness  in  every  branch 
of  Christian  conversation,  respecting  God,  their  neighbours,  and 
themselves,  so  as  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour ; 
and  so  competent  satisfaction  as  to  their  experimental  religion 
should  be  had,  as  well  as  of  their  learning ;  though  neither  does 
said  article  in  this  define  the  means  of  obtaining  it. 

"  We  also  declare  that  none  should  be  admitted  to  that  sacred 
work  without  competent  skill  in  divinity,  and  in  cases  of  conscience, 
that  they  may  be  apt  to  teach,  to  show  the  true  scriptural  marks 
of  real  converts,  how  far  hypocrites  may  go,  and  whereby  deceive 
themselves ;  what  are  the  usual  exercises  of  persons  in  the  work 
of  conversion,  and  after  godliness  ;  and  so  capable  to  feed  the  flock, 
direct  their  spiritual  exercises,  and  speak  to  their  several  cases. 
And  we  declare  against  admitting  to  that  sacred  trust,  or  continuing 
in  it,  any  who  are  found  ignorant,  unsound,  unholy,  or  scandalous. 

"  And  we  understand  the  said  article  to  require  competent  satis- 
faction in  the  particulars  mentioned,  but  not  at  all  to  define  the 
way  or  means  by  which  that  satisfaction  must  be  sought ;  and, 
therefore,  as  to  the  means  and  grounds  of  this  satisfaction,  we 
think  that  a  serious  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to 
him,  attended  with  credible  evidences  of  sincerity,  in  the  fruits  of 
an  habitual  godly,  sober  life,  with  like  profession  that  the  solemn 
work  is  not  undertaken  for  filthy  lucre,  but  out  of  desire  to  glorify 
God  and  promote  the  salvation  of  immortal  souls,  are  the  scriptu- 
ral, prescribed,  and  only  means  of  said  competent  satisfaction  to  a 
judicature,  whose  judicial  sentence  must  be  founded  on  things 
known  and  certain.  And  we  think  that  men's  declarations  of  their 
own  experience  in  religion,  which  is  but  their  own  testimony  of 


326  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

themselves,  is  no  commanded,  warrantable,  or  useful  means  that 
a  judicature  should  require,  or  in  any  measure  found  their  judg- 
ment upon. 

"  From  all  which  we  conclude,  that  our  brethren  and  we  are 
agreed  in  adhering  to  the  said  article  of  our  union,  and  insisting 
on  the  satisfaction  it  requires ;  agreed  in  the  duty  and  importance 
of  using  all  appointed  warrantable  means  for  securing  a  godly  min- 
istry ;  and  agreed  as  to  the  means  of  obtaining  competent  satisfac- 
tion as  to  candidates'  experimental  acquaintance  with  religion,  and 
what  should  satisfy  a  judicature  in  this  ;  such  as  serious  profession, 
godly  life,  skill  to  direct  Christian  exercises  and  practice,  and  to 
speak  to  doubts  and  cases  of  conscience,  &c. ;  excepting  that  some 
insist  on  requiring  and  using  an  account  of  the  candidate's  per- 
sonal exercises  and  experiences  in  religion,  as  a  means  of  judica- 
ture's satisfaction  and  ground  of  their  proceedings  with  him,  which 
we  disallow. 

"  So  the  case  to  be  resolved  seems  only,  whether  a  candidate's 
declaration  of  his  own  personal  experiences  and  exercises  in  reli- 
gion, given  in  the  way  of  narrative  of  these,  or  in  answer  to  ques- 
tions put  to  him  concerning  them,  should  be  required  by  a  judica- 
ture, as  one  appointed,  warrantable  and  useful  means  of  forming  a 
judgment  of  his  experimental  acquaintance  with  religion,  accord- 
ing to  which  judgment  they  are  to  receive  or  reject  him."* 

The  case  having  been  thus  distinctly  presented,  the  Synod  re- 
solved itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  house,  and  every  mem- 
ber was  called  upon  in  order  to  express  his  views  on  the  subject. 
This  process  having  been  gone  through  with,  the  Synod  resumed 
their  former  character,  and  answered  the  question  by  deciding  that 
a  declaration  of  the  candidate's  personal  experience  should  be  re- 
quired, as  a  proper  means  of  forming  a  judgment  of  his  experimen- 
tal acquaintance  with  religion.  There  were  but  thirteen  voices  in 
the  negative  and  one  non  liquet.^ 

*  Minutes,  pp.  64,  65. 

f  The  number  of  votes  in  the  affirmative  is  not  stated.  It  appears  from  the 
minutes,  that  there  were  forty  ministers  and  twenty-three  elders  present  at 
this  meeting  of  the  Synod.  If  all  voted  on  this  occasion,  the  result  was  54 
yeas,  lo  nays,  une  non  liquet. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  827 

This  decision  gave  rise  to  two  other  questions,  1.  Whether  the 
answer  just  rendered  was  a  compliance  with  the  plain  sense  of  the 
sixth  article  of  the  plan  of  union,  so  often  referred  to,  and  agree- 
able to  the  order  in  the  Westminster  Directory,  wherein  a  Presby- 
tery is  directed  to  inquire  touching  the  grace  of  God  in  him,  i.  e.  in  the 
candidate.  The  second  question  was,  Whether  the  Synod's  answer 
was  not  a  direct  and  open  violation  of  the  sixth  article  of  the  plan 
of  union,  by  which  both  Synods  were  allowed  to  follow  their  own 
judgment  for  obtaining  competent  satisfaction  as  to  a  candidate's 
learning  and  experimental  acquaintance  with  religion,  "  for  it  was 
well  known  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  that  the  Presbyteries  be- 
longing to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  did  not  examine  a  candi- 
date's experiences."  And  in  the  seventh  article  of  the  union  it 
was  agreed  "  the  Presbyteries  might  continue  to  act  separately,  as 
they  had  done  ;  by  which  agreement  they  confirmed  the  method 
used  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  in  the  licensing  of  candidates." 

In  order  to  ascertain  how  the  sixth  article  of  the  plan  of  union 
was  understood,  the  roll  was  called  for  each  member  to  express  his 
sentiments.  It  appeared  that  the  members  of  the  late  Synod  of 
New  York,  that  were  at  the  making  of  the  union,  in  general  agreed 
in  understanding  the  article  so  as  to  enjoin  such  a  declaration  of 
experiences ;  and  that  the  members  of  the  late  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, that  were  at  the  making  of  the  union,  in  general  agreed  in 
understanding  that  article  so  as  not  to  enjoin  such  declaration. 
And  each  declared  they  so  understood  it  at  the  time  of  making  the 
union. 

While  the  Synod  were  in  great  perplexity,  and  unable  to  accom- 
modate the  difficulty,  an  overture  was  presented  in  the  name  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  "  who,  fearing  a  breach  in  the  Synod  on 
this  question,  chose  to  be  absent,  but  sent  the  following  proposals 
to  maintain  peace  and  harmony."  The  substance  only  of  these 
proposals  is  entered  upon  the  minutes  in  the  following  words  :*  "1. 

*  "  The  clerk  of  the  Synod,"  it  is  stated,  did  not  deliver  this  excellent 
paper  to  Dr.  Francis .  Alison,  the  transcriber,  which  he  thinks  proper  to  ob- 
serve, and  leave  room  to  insert  it,  if  it  can  be  had  from  the  minutes  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York ;  but  he  gives  the  substance  of  it  from  notes  on  that 
occasion,  and  from  hLs  own  memory." 


328  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

That  wi  ere  different  Presbyteries  follow  different  methods  of  exam- 
ining the  qualifications  of  candidates,  they  shall  continue  to  do  so 
without  censuring  or  blaming  one  another.  2.  That  where  the 
members  pf  the  same  Presbytery  differ  in  their  sentiments  respect- 
ing the  examination  of  candidates'  experiences,  it  shall  be  deter- 
mined how  they  shall  act,  by  the  vote  of  the  majority.  3.  They 
shall  desire  the  candidate  to  declare  in  thesi  what  he  thinks  to  be 
the  experience  of  a  real  convert,  and  then  they  may  ask  him  whe- 
ther he  believes  that  he  has  experienced  this  saving  change ;  or,  4. 
If  peace  cannot  be  thus  preserved,  it  is  proposed  that  ministers  be 
joined  together  in  Presbyteries,  so  that  they  may  peaceably  act  ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  their  judgment,  and  according  to  the  dictates 
of  a  good  conscience  in  the  discharge  of  this  important  part  of 
their  ministerial  duty."* 

The  whole  subject  was  referred  to  Messrs.  Treat,  Finley,  and 
Blair,  with  Dr.  Alison,  Messrs.  Ewing,  Alexander  McDowell,  and 
Azariah  Horton,  to  attempt  an*  amicable  accommodation.  This 
committee  not  being  able  to  agree  upon  any  one  overture,  reported 
several,  and  the  Synod,  after  "  solemn  prayer  to  God  for  his 
gracious  presence  and  direction,"  came  to  the  following  conclusion: 
"  Whereas  some  members  complain  of  two  determinations  of  this 
Synod,  the  first  a  resolution  of  a  query  concerning  the  examina- 
tion of  a  candidate's  experience,  in  order  to  his  admission  or  re- 
jection ;  the  other  relating  to  the  obvious  sense  of  the  sixth  article 
of  the  plan  of  union,  apprehending  that  by  said  determinations, 
the  Synod  laid  an  obligation  on  them  to  act  according  to  the  senti- 
ments expressed  in  them  :  Now  to  give  relief,  and  full  satisfaction, 
to  such  brethren,  the  Synod  declare  they  had  no  design  by  those 
determinations  to  lay  the  least  obligation  or  restraint  on  said  mem- 
bers with  respect  to  their  conduct,  but  only  to  express  their  own 
sense  of  the  meaning  of  that  article,  and  their  sentiments  of  the 
query;  and,  hereupon,"  it  is  added,  "  the  members  declared  them- 
selves satisfied,  and  withdrew  their  protest. "f 

The  Synod  state  further,  that  being  "  earnestly  desirous  that  all 
lue  liberty  of  conscience  be  preserved  inviolate,  and  that  peace  and 

*  Minutes,  p.  69.  f  Ibid.  p.  73. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  329 

harmony  be  maintained  and  promoted,  they  do  agree  that  when 
any  person  shall  offer  himself  as  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  to 
any  of  our  Presbyteries,  every  member  of  the  Presbytery  may  use 
that  way  which  he  in  conscience  looks  upon  as  proper,  to  obtain  a 
competent  satisfaction  of  the  person's  experimental  acquaintance 
with  religion,  and  then  the  Presbytery,  as  a  Presbytery,  shall  de- 
termine whether  they  will  take  him  on  further  trials."  This  agree- 
ment, it  is  stated,  did  not  satisfy  a  number  of  the  Synod.  It  was 
immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  this  affair,  that  the  Synod 
erected  those  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  who  dis- 
approved of  this  examination  into  the  personal  experience  of  the 
candidate  for  the  ministry,  into  a  Presbytery  by  themselves.  On 
this,  as  on  other  occasions,  the  Synod  was  saved  from  schism  by 
the  moderation  of  the  New  York  and  other  distant  members.  The 
new-side  men  of  Donegal  and  Brunswick,  as  appears  from  their 
protests,  were  unwilling  to  compromise  any  of  these  difficulties. 

In  1773,  Mr.  John  Roan  introduced  the  following  overture : 
"  Whereas  there  have  been  repeated  complaints  from  serious  per- 
sons, of  the  degeneracy  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination  in  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  and  of  their  falling  off  from  the  great  doc- 
trines of  the  reformation,  so  that  it  is  very  possible  there  may  be 
Presbyteries  the  majority  of  which  would  not  be  unwilling  to  license, 
ordain,  or  recommend,  ministers  unsound  in  the  faith  ;  it  seems  to 
be  of  moment  to  guard  against  the  admission  of  strangers  into  the 
body,  before  their  principles  and  character  are  thoroughly  ascer- 
tained. Therefore  it  is  overtured  that  no  Presbytery  be  permitted 
to  receive  any  stranger  under  the  character  of  minister  or  candi- 
date, or  to  give  him  appointments  in  the  congregations  under  our 
care  until  the  Synod  that  shall  meet  after  their  arrival,  that  the 
whole  testimonials  and  credentials  offered  by  such  persons  be  laid 
before  the  Synod  to  be  by  them  considered  and  judged  of,  in  order 
to  their  admission  or  rejection."*  This  proposition  was  adopted 
by  a  small  majority.  It  was  afterwards  agreed  that  the  word 
stranger,  in  the  above  overture,  "  should  not  be  extended  to  any 
person  from  any  part  of  the  continent  of  America,  "f 

*  Minutes,  p.  279.  t  Ibid.  p.  284. 


330  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

Against  the  adoption  of  this  rule  two  protests  were  entered,  the 
one  by  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,*  and  the  other  by 
Messrs.  Matthew  Wilson,  James  Latta,  John  King,  and  James 
Lang.  The  reasons  assigned  for  each  are  nearly  the  same,  and  are 
substantially  as  follows :  1.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of 
Presbyteries,  to  whom  it  belongs  to  ordain  and  admit  ministers.  If 
they  err  in  the  exercise  of  their  powers,  they  are  accountable  to 
higher  judicatories ;  but  they  are  not  to  be  deprived  of  those 
powers  merely  because  they  may  err.  2.  It  rests  upon  the  sus- 
picion that  Presbyteries  are  unfaithful,  and  are  not  to  be  trusted  in 
the  matter.  3.  It  is  uncharitable  and  unjust  towards  the  foreign 
churches ;  "  as  if  all  the  reformed  churches  solemnly  subscribing 
or  assenting  to  the  same  Confession  of  Faith,  the  same  Catechisms, 
and  the  same  Directory,  or  plan  of  discipline  and  government,  were 
wholly  corrupted  in  faith  or  practice,  notwithstanding  their  solemn 
assent  and  subscription  to  the  form  of  sound  doctrine."  4.  It  is 
unfriendly  to  the  ministers  who  come  among  us,  and  tends  to  lead 
them  to  form  Presbyteries  independent  of  the  Synod.  5.  It  sets  a 
bad  precedent,  as  on  similar  plausible  pretexts  the  Synod  might 
take  away  all  the  rights  of  the  Presbyteries.  6.  It  is  unnecessary, 
as  we  have  rules  which  long  experience  proves  to  be  sufficient. 
7.  It  tends  to  produce  contention  and  schism;  for  if  the  Synod 
assumes  such  unscriptural  powers,  some  of  the  Presbyteries  may 
be  expected  to  withdraw  from  a  body  which  they  consider  tyranni- 
cal. 8.  Because  the  explanatory  clause  added  in  order  to  exempt 
all  ministers  coming  from  any  part  of  America,  seems  to  be  a  mere 
subterfuge  and  equivocation.  In  the  agreements  made  in  1764 
and  1765,  which  had  the  same  object  with  this  new  law,  the  New 
England  churches  were  expressly  mentioned,  and  in  the  course  of 
the  debates  upon  this  overture  they  were  repeatedly  referred  to, 
and  nothing  was  said  or  even  insinuated  to  intimate  that  they  were 
to  be  excluded  from  its  operation.  And,  therefore,  now  to  say  that 
flhey  were  not  intended,  merely  to  relieve  "a  few  members  of  the 

*  Signed  by  Francis  Alison,  John  Elder,  Joseph  Tate,  John  Ewing,  John 
Simonton,  and  Patrick  Alison. 


IN    THE     UNITED    STATES.  331 

Synod,"  or,  (as  it  is  said  in  the  other  protest,)  "some  dissenting 
brethren,"  does  not  appear  to  be  candid.* 

The  above  statement  shows  how  completely  the  tables  were  now 
turned.  These  protests  contain  nearly  the  same  reasons  as  those 
formerly  urged  by  the  New  Brunswick  Presbytery  against  the  act 
of  which  Dr.  Alison  and  his  friends  were  the  strenuous  supporters. 
And  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  stand  very  much  on  the  same 
ground.  If  the  Presbyteries  in  Synod  assembled,  had  a  right  to 
agree  that  they  would  not  ordain  any  man  without  a  college  diploma 
or  synodical  certificate ;  they  had  a  right  to  agree  that  foreign 
ministers  and  candidates  should  be  subjected  to  the  proposed  pro- 
bation. 

In  reply  to  these  protests  the  Synod  say,  that  neither  the  over- 
ture itself,  nor  the  Synod's  judgment  on  it,  includes  any  claim  of 
power  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  Presbyteries ;  that  the  power 
of  licensure  and  ordination  is  not  so  much  as  named  in  either,  and 
that  it  would  be  difficult  for  the  protesters  to  prove  that  the  right 
to  admit  persons  already  licensed  or  ordained,  belonged  exclusively 
to  the  Presbyteries.  They  deny  that  the  rule  in  question  was  founded 
upon  any  want  of  confidence  in  their  own  Presbyteries,  or  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  ministry  in  Britain  and  Ireland  were  wholly 
corrupt,  but  only  that  there  was  such  a  degeneracy  among  them  as 
rendered  caution  on  our  part  peculiarly  necessary,  and  that  no 
Presbytery  could  have  the  same  means  of  information  respecting 
those  foreign  ministers  as  the  whole  Synod  had.  They  further 
state,  as  the  overture  only  held  up  to  view  the  churches  of  Britain 
and  Ireland,  it  is  most  unfair  to  infer  that  the  explanatory  clause 
annexed  to  the  judgment,  "  seemed  to  be  a  mere  subterfuge  and 
equivocation,  and  calculated  to  relieve  only  a  few  members  of  the 
Synod."t 

Dr.  Rodgers  then  moved  that  the  operation  of  the  above  rule 
should   be    suspended    until    next    year.     This    motion    was    sub- 

*  Besides  the  ministers  who  signed  these  protests,  Dr.  Rodgers,  Joseph 
Montgomery,  Alexander  McWhorter,  John  Miller,  Alexander  McDowell, 
James  Anderson,  Thomas  Reed,  and  James  Caldwell,  dissented  from  the 
decision  by  which  Mr.  Roan's  overture  was  adopted. 

f  Minutes,  p.  283. 


332  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

sequently  withdrawn,  and  the  fullowing  adopted  in  its  stead : 
"  Whereas  many  brethren  are  dissatisfied  with  the  act  of  Synod 
respecting  the  non-admission  of  ministers  and  candidates  from 
foreign  parts,  it  is  proposed  that  the  Presbytery  to  which  any  such 
gentlemen  may  offer  themselves,  may  be  allowed,  if  they  see  their 
way  clear,  to  employ  them  in  their  vacancies,  but  that  they  be  not 
admitted  to  full  membership  until  the  next  Synod,  when  their  tes- 
timonials and  recommendations  shall  be  laid  before  the  Synod." 
This  proposition  being  agreed  to,  the  Presbyteries  were  directed  to 
regulate  themselves  accordingly.* 

The  following  year,  1774,  this  act  was  repealed,  and  the  follow- 
ing adopted,  by  an  unanimous  vote,  in  its  stead :  "  Whereas  it  is 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  interests  of  the  Redeemer's  king- 
dom, that  the  greatest  care  should  be  observed  by  church  judi- 
catures to  maintain  orthodoxy  in  doctrine  and  purity  in  practice  in 
all  their  members,  this  Synod,  in  addition  to  the  agreement  on  this 
head,  of  the  year  1764,  and  further  explained  in  1765,  do  most 
earnestly  recommend  it  to  all  the  Presbyteries  to  be  very  strict  and 
careful  respecting  these  matters,  especially  in  examining  the  cer- 
tificates or  testimonials  of  ministers  or  probationers  who  come  from 
foreign  churches ;  and  that  they  be  cautious  about  receiving  them, 
unless  the  authenticity  of  their  certificates  and  testimonials  be  sup- 
ported by  private  letters,  or  other  credible  or  sufficient  evidence. 
And  in  order  the  more  effectually  to  preserve  this  Synod,  our  Pres- 
byteries and  congregations  from  imposition  and  abuse,  every  year 
when  any  Presbytery  may  report  that  they  have  received  any  min- 
ister or  probationer  from  foreign  churches,  that  Presbytery  shall 
lay  before  the  Synod  the  testimonials  and  all  other  certificates  upon 
which  they  received  such  minister  or  probationer,  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  Synod,  before  such  foreign  ministers  or  probationers 
shall  be  enrolled  as  members  of  our  body ;  and  if  the  Synod  shall 
find  said  testimonials  false  or  insufficient,  the  whole  proceeding  had 
by  the  Presbytery  in  the  admission,  shall  be  held  to  be  void;  and 
the  Presbytery  shall  not  from  that  time  receive  and  acknowledge 
him  as  a  member  of  this  body,  or  in  ministerial  communion  with 

*  Minutes,  p.  287. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  333 

us.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  whensoever  any  gentlemen  from 
abroad  shall  come  duly  recommended  as  above,  we  will  gladly 
receive  them  as  brethren,  and  give  them  every  encouragement  in 
our  power."*  The  difference  between  this  and  the  former  rule 
was,  that  the  one  forbad  the  Presbyteries  to  receive  a  foreign  min- 
ister at  all  until  he  had  been  approved  by  the  Synod ;  the  other 
allowed  them  to  receive  them  subject  to  that  approbation.  In  case, 
however,  the  Synod  was  dissatisfied,  no  act  of  the  Presbytery  was 
required  to  dissolve  the  connection  between  the  new  member  and 
the  Presbytery  or  Synod.  The  whole  presbyterial  proceeding  was 
set  aside  as  void.  It  will  appear  in  the  sequel  that  members 
admitted  by  the  Presbyteries  were,  at  times,  thus  rejected  by  the 
Synod.  This  latter  act,  though  passed  unanimously,  seems  as 
much  open  to  the  objection  of  interfering  with  the  rights  of  Pres- 
byteries as  the  former. 

The  propriety  of  ordaining  ministers,  sine  titulo,  was  early 
brought  under  the  consideration  of  the  Synod.  In  1763,  this  sub- 
ject was  referred  to  the  several  Presbyteries,  that  their  members 
might  be  prepared  to  discuss  it  at  the  next  meeting.  Accordingly, 
the  following  year,  after  the  Presbyteries  had  delivered  their  sen- 
timents on  the  subject,  and  ever}7  member  had  been  called  upon  to 
speak,  the  Synod  came  to  the  following  conclusion :  "  That  in  ordi- 
nary cases,  where  churches  are  properly  regulated  and  organized, 
it  is  a  practice  highly  inexpedient,  and  of  dangerous  consequences, 
not  to  be  allowed  in  our  body,  except  in  some  special  cases,  as  mis- 
sions to  the  Indians,  and  some  distant  places  that  regularly  apply 
for  ministers.  But  as  the  honour  and  reputation  of  the  Synod  are 
much  interested  in  the  conduct  of  Presbyteries  in  such  special 
cases,  it  is  judged  that  they  should  previously  apply  to  the  Synod, 
and  take  their  advice  therein  ;  unless  the  cases  require  such  haste 
as  would  necessarily  prevent  the  benefit  of  such  mission,  if  delaved 
until  the  next  session  of  Synod  ;  in  which  cases  the  Presbyteries 
shall  report  to  the  next  Synod  the  state  of  the  case,  and  the  rea- 
sons of  their  conduct.""}" 

Agreeably  to  this  rule  the  Presbyteries  were  in    the  habit  of 

*  Minutes,  p.  299.  f  Ibid.  p.  103. 


334  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

applying  to  the  Synod  for  permission  before  they  proceeded  to  such 
ordinations.  Thus,  in  1766,  "  Suffolk  Presbytery  desired  leave  to 
ordain  two  candidates,  Mr.  Elam  Totter  and  Mr.  Isaac  Lewis,  sine 
titulo,  in  order  to  their  being  sent  to  the  southward,  which  was 
granted."*  It  appears,  however,  that  in  this  Presbytery  there  was 
some  diversity  of  opinion  on  this  subject,  as  in  1771,  a  letter  was 
received  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Prime,  "  signifying  the  difficulty  which 
he  and  some  of  his  brethren  laboured  under,  on  account  of  an 
order  of  Synod  respecting  the  ordination  of  ministers  sine  titulo, 
and  requesting  some  relief  in  that  matter."  In  their  answer  the 
Synod  say,  that  it  appears  that  Mr.  Prime,  and  the  brethren  in 
whose  name  he  wrote,  agreed  with  the  Synod  as  to  the  necessity 
of  being  satisfied  with  the  piety,  learning,  prudence,  and  aptness  to 
teach,  of  those  sent  forth  to  labour  in  Christ's  vineyard;  and  that 
they  further  agreed  with  the  Synod  as  to  the  propriety  of  making 
trial  of  candidates  by  hearing  them  preach  and  expound  the  Scrip- 
tures before  ordination.  The  Synod  add,  that  they  "  are  firmly 
persuaded  that  our  method  of  licensing  them  to  preach  by  way  of 
probation  for  the  gospel  ministry  before  ordination,  is  founded  on 
general  directions  given  by  the  apostles,  that  we  should  lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man,  but  should  commit  this  charge  to  faithful  men 
who  are  known  to  be  able  to  teach  others.  But  as  Mr.  Prime,  and 
the  brethren  in  whose  name  he  writes,  appear  to  differ  from  this 
Synod  only  in  the  mode  of  making  these  necessary  trials  before 
ordination ;  the  Synod,  after  serious  consideration  of  their  request, 
which  they  are  persuaded  is  made  from  a  conscientious  regard  to 
what  they  think  their  duty,  have  agreed  to  lay  no  burden  on  them, 
or  on  those  young  men  whose  consciences  will  not  allow  them  to 
preach  the  gospel  without  ordination  ;  and  therefore,  though  the 
Synod  cannot  repeal  the  act  referred  to  in  the  above  letter  respect- 
ing the  ordaining  ministers,  sine  titulo,  as  they  judge  it  still  expe- 
dient and  useful,  yet  they  allow  the  Presbytery  to  ordain  those 
gentlemen  referred  to  by  Mr.  Prime  in  his  letter,  in  case  they  shall 
be  found  on  trial  to  be  qualified  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  not 
doubting  but  they  will  take  due  care  on  this  important  head."f 

*  Minutes,  p.  147.  t  Ibid,  pp.  132,  133. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  335 

The  same  year  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  were  directed 
to  ordain  Mr.  Schenck  sine  titulo,  in  order  to  his  going  on  a  mis- 
sion, provided  they  saw  their  way  clear.*  In  1776,  the  first  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia  applied  to  Synod  for  their  concurrence  in 
the  ordination  of  Mr.  Keith  sine  titulo,  provided  he  consented  to 
go  as  a  missionary  to  Kentucky. f  In  1778,  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  reported  that  they  had  ordained  the  Rev.  Thaddeus  Dodd 
sine  titulo,  "  in  consequence  of  liberty  obtained  from  the  Synod 
for  that  purpose."|  In  1781,  the  Synod  "authorized  the  first 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  to  proceed"  to  a  similar  ordination. § 
In  1781,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  applied  for  liberty  to  or- 
dain Mr.  Daniel  Jones  sine  titulo,  which  was  granted. ||  A  similar 
request  was  made  in  1782.  by  the  Presbytery  of  Orange ;  and 
in  1785,  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  both  of  which  were 
granted. "ft" 

Questions  connected  with  the  subject  of  psalmody  were  repeat- 
edly presented  to  the  Synod.  In  1763,  a  question  was  introduced 
in  these  words :  "  As  sundry  members  and  congregations  within 
the  bounds  of  our  Synod  judge  it  most  for  edification  to  sing  Dr. 
Watts'  imitation  of  David's  Psalms,  do  the  Synod  so  far  approve 
said  imitation  as  to  allow  such  ministers  and  congregations  the 
liberty  of  using  it  ?"  The  Synod  answered,  that  as  many  of  their 
body  had  never  particularly  examined  the  book  in  question,  they 
were  not  prepared  to  answer  the  question;  but  as  it  was  approved 
by  many  members  of  the  Synod,  they  had  no  objection  to  its  use 
until  the  matter  of  psalmody  be  further  considered.  And  it  was 
recommended  to  the  members  to  examine  the  subject,  and  come 
prepared  the  next  year  to  give  their  views  upon  it.**  In  1764,  the 
matter  was  again  postponed  ;  and  in  1765,  it  was  referred  to  Dr. 
Finley  and  Mr.  McDowell,  who  made  the  following  report  upon  it, 
which  was  adopted.  "  The  Synod  judge  it  best,  in  present  circum- 
stances, only  to  declare  that  they  look  on  the  inspired  Psalms  in 
Scripture  to  be  proper  matter  to  be  sung  in  divine  worship,  accord- 

*  Minutes,  p.  238.  f  Ibid.  p.  338.  %  Ibid.  p.  352. 

I  Ibid.  p.  371.  ||  Ibid.  p.  379.  \  Ibid.  pp.  386  and  424. 

**  Ibid.  p.  92. 


836  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURCH 

ing  to  their  original  design,  and  the  practice  of  the  Christian 
churches  ;  yet  will  not  forbid  those  to  use  the  imitation  of  them, 
whose  judgment  and  inclination  lead  them  so  to  do."* 

In  1773,  the  subject  was  again  brought  up  by  an  appeal  entered 
by  certain  members  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  church  in  Philadel- 
phia, from  a  decision  of  their  Presbytery.  After  the  several  parties 
had  been  heard,  the  Synod  declared  that  though  the  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  seemed  to  be  drawn  up  with  great  caution  and  ten- 
derness, they  did  not  think  it  proper  finally  to  decide  upon  it  at 
that  time,  but  appointed  Dr.  Witherspoon,  Dr.  Rodgers,  Mr.  Strain, 
and  Mr.  McWhorter,  a  committee  to  converse  with  the  parties  in 
the  congregation  who  differed  about  psalmody,  and  to  make  a  re- 
port to  the  Synod.  This  committee  reported,  that  the  Synod  ought 
not  to  judge  the  merits  of  the  appeal,  so  as  to  affirm  or  disapprove 
the  several  propositions  laid  down  by  the  Presbytery ;  and  as  there 
was  not  time  then  to  consider  the  several  versions  of  the  Psalms  in 
question,  and  as  congregations  had  been  allowed  to  settle  this  matter 
according  to  their  own  choice,  the  Synod  ought  not  to  make  any 
order  to  forbid  the  practice  now  begun,  but  should  exhort  the  dif- 
ferent parties  to  moderation  and  peace.  This  report  was  adopted. f 
In  1785,  the  following  overture  was  presented  to  the  Synod: 
"Whereas  the  nearest  uniformity  that  is  practicable  in  the  exter- 
nal modes  of  divine  worship  is  to  be  desired,  and  the  using  differ- 
ent books  of  psalmody  is  matter  of  offence  not  only  to  Presbyte- 
rians of  different  denominations,  but  also  to  many  congregations 
under  our  care ;  it  is  queried,  whether  the  Synod  may  not  choose 
out,  and  order  some  of  their  number  to  take  the  assistance  of  all 
the  versions  in  our  power,  and  compose  for  us  a  version  more  suit- 
able to  our  circumstances  and  our  taste  than  any  we  yet  have." 
The  proposition  involved  in  this  query  having  been  assented  to,  the 
Synod  appointed  Dr.  Patrick  Alison,  Dr.  Davidson,  Dr.  Ewing, 
Mr.  Blair,  and  Mr.  Ewing,  to  make  the  proposed  selection. £  The 
following  year  this  committee  reported  progress  and  was  continued  ; 
and,  in  1787,  the  Synod  adopted  the  following  resolution :  "  The 
Synod  did  allow,  and  do  hereby  allow,  that  Dr.  Watts'  imitation 
*  Minutes,  p.  118.  f  Ibid.  pp.  287,  289.  t  Ibid.  p.  430. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  337 

of  David's  Psalms,  as  revised  by  Mr.  Barlow,  be  used  in  the 
churches  and  families  under  their  care." 

Questions  of  conscience,  relating  to  marriage,  gave  the  Synod 
no  little  trouble.  At  their  first  meeting  they  were  called  upon  to 
decide,  whether  a  man  who  had  married  his  half-brother's  widow, 
might  lawfully  live  with  her  as  his  wife.  It  was  deferred  from 
year  to  year  until  1761.  In  the  mean  time  another  question  had 
arisen,  viz.  whether  a  man  could  lawfully  marry  the  sister  of  his 
deceased  wife  ?  With  regard  to  this  latter  case  the  Synod,  in  the 
first  instance,  adopted  the  following  minute :  "  Though  the  major- 
ity of  the  Synod  think  that  the  marriage  is  incestuous,  and  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  God  and  the  land,  and  agree  that  it  is  sinful, 
and  of  dangerous  tendency  ;  yet,  inasmuch  as  some  learned  men 
are  not  so  clear  in  this  point,  it  is  agreed  to  resume  the  considera- 
tion hereof  the  next  year."*  Accordingly,  in  1761,  they  included 
the  two  cases  in  the  following  decision :  "  That,  as  the  Levitical 
law,  enforced  by  the  civil  laws  of  the  land,  is  the  only  rule  where- 
by we  are  to  judge  of  marriages,  whoever  marry  within  the  degrees 
of  consanguinity  or  affinity  forbidden  therein,  act  unlawfully,  and 
have  no  right  to  the  distinguishing  privileges  of  the  church ;  and 
as  the  marriages  in  question  appear  to  be  within  the  prohibited 
degrees,  they  are  to  be  accounted  unlawful,  and  the  persons 
suspended  from  special  communion,  while  they  continue  in  this  rela- 
tion."f 

The  Synod,  however,  did  not  abide  by  the  above  decision.  In 
1779,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  referred  the  case  of  a  man 
who  had  married  the  sister  of  his  former  wife,  with  the  query, 
whether  he  could  properly  be  admitted  to  church  privileges  ?  As 
the  Synod  deferred  from  year  to  year  answering  the  question,  the 
person  interested  presented,  in  1782,  a  petition  that  he  might  no 
longer  be  debarred  from  the  privileges  of  the  church  on  account 
of  his  marriage.  And  after  full  and  deliberate  discussion,  the 
question  was  put,  shall  Anthony  Duchane  and  his  wife  be  capable 
of  Christian  privileges,  their  marriage  notwithstanding  ?  which 
was  carried  in  the  affirmative  by  a  considerable  majority.     Against 

*  Minutes,  p.  36.  t  Jbid.  p.  53. 

VOL.  II. — 22 


333  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

this  decision  the  Rev.  James  Finley  and  Robert  Cooper  protested ; 
and  Alexander  Millet,  John  King,  John  Creaghead,  Colin  McFar- 
quhar,  and  James  Power  dissented.* 

The  following  year  remonstrances  were  sent  in  from  several  con- 
gregations, requesting  the  Synod  to  reverse  the  above  judgment. 
The  Synod  accordingly  resumed  the  case,  and,  "  declared  their 
dissatisfaction  with  all  such  marriages  as  are  inconsistent  with  the 
Levitical  law,  and  that  persons  marrying  within  the  degrees  of  con- 
sanguinity prohibited  in  that  law  ought  to  suffer  the  censures  of 
the  church  ;  and  they  further  judged,  that  although  the  marriage 
of  a  man  to  two  sisters  successively,  viz.  to  one  after  the  death  of 
the  other,  may  not  be  a  direct  violation  of  the  express  words  of  that 
law,  yet  as  it  is  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  protestant  churches 
in  general,  and  an  evidence  of  great  untenderness  towards  many 
serious  and  well-disposed  Christians,  and  may,  through  the  preju- 
dices or  generally  received  opinions  of  the  members  of  our  church, 
be  productive  of  very  disagreeable  consequences,  the  persons  con- 
tracting such  marriages  are  highly  censurable,  and  the  practice 
ought  to  be  disallowed  in  express  terms  by  the  Synod ;  and  we  do, 
therefore,  condemn  such  marriages  as  imprudent  and  unseason- 
able. Yet  as  some  things  may  be  done  very  imprudently  and  un- 
seasonably, which  when  done  ought  not  to  be  annulled,  we  are  of 
opinion  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  persons  whom  this  judg- 
ment respects  to  separate  from  one  another  ;  yet  they  should  not 
be  received  into  the  communion  of  the  church,  without  a  solemn 
admonition  at  the  discretion  of  the  congregation  to  which  they 
belong.  And  the  Synod  publicly  recommend  it  to  all  their  mem- 
bers to  abstain  from  celebrating  such  marriages,  and  to  discounte- 
nance them  by  all  the  proper  means  in  their  power."f  The  Rev. 
James  Finley  entered  his  dissent  from  this  judgment,  as  being  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  that  rendered  the  year  before. 

In  1760,  the  case  where  "  a  brother's  and  sister's  relicts  had 
married  together,"  was  considered,  and  the  Synod  decided,  "That 
nowever  inexpedient  such  a  marriage  may  be,  yet  as  we  cannot  find 

*  Minutes,  p.  387.  f  Ibid.  p.  397 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  339 

it  prohibited  by  the  Levitical  law,  it  is  not  to  be  condemned  as 
incestuous."* 

The  first  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  in  1770,  referred  to  the 
Synod  for  their  decision  the  question,  whether  a  man  may  lawfully 
marry  his  wife's  brother's  daughter  ?  The  question  was  not  an- 
swered until  1772,  when  the  following  minute  was  adopted  in  rela- 
tion to  it.  "  After  mature  deliberation,  the  Synod  declare  their 
great  dissatisfaction  with  all  such  marriages  as  are  inconsistent 
Avith  the  Levitical  law,  which  in  cases  matrimonial,  we  understand 
to  be  the  law  of  our  nation ;  and  that  persons  intermarrying  in 
these  prohibited  degrees,  are  not  only  punishable  by  the  laws  of 
the  country,  but  ought  to  suffer  the  censures  of  the  church.  And 
further  judge  that  though  the  present  case  is  not  a  direct  violation 
of  the  express  words  of  the  Levitical  law,  yet  as  it  is  contrary  to 
the  custom  of  protestant  nations  in  general,  and  an  evidence  of 
great  untenderness,  and  so  opposite  to  such  precepts  of  the  gospel 
as  require  Christians  to  avoid  things  of  ill  report,  and  all  appear- 
ance of  evil,  and  what  is  offensive  to  the  church,  that  the  persons 
referred  to  in  this  instance  ought  to  be  rebuked  by  the  church  ses- 
sion, and  others  warned  against  such  offensive  conduct.  And  in 
case  these  persons  submit  to  such  rebuke,  and  are  in  other  respects 
regular  professors,  that  they  be  not  debarred  Christian  privileges. "f 

In  1785,  the  following  question  was  referred  to  the  Synod  by  the 
Presbytery  of  Donegal,  viz. :  "  Whether  on  full  proof  of  adultery 
by  one  party,  the  Presbytery  has  a  right  to  declare  the  marriage 
so  far  void,  as  that  the  innocent  party  may  marry  again  without 
being  liable  to  church  censure?"  This  question  was  decided  in 
the  affirmative  by  a  small  majority. J 

In  1786,  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  presented  as  a  case  of  con- 
science the  following  question  :  Whether  Christian  masters  or  mis- 
tresses ought  in  duty  to  have  such  children  baptized  as  are  under 
their  care,  though  born  of  parents  not  in  communion  with  any 
Christian  church?  To  this  it  was  answered,  that  the  Synod  aie 
of  opinion  that  Christian  masters  and  mistresses,  whose  professions 
and  conduct  are  such  as  to  give  them  a  right  to  the  ordinance  of 

*  Minutes,  pp.  31  and  36.  f  Ibid.  p.  254.  J  Ibid.  p.  421. 


340  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

baptism  for  their  own  children,  may  and  ought  to  dedicate  the 
children  of  their  household  to  God  in  that  ordinance,  when  they 
have  no  scruple  of  conscience  to  the  contrary. 

A  second  question  was:  Whether  Christian  slaves  having  chil- 
dren at  the  entire  direction  of  unchristian  masters,  and  not  having 
it  in  their  power  to  instruct  them  in  religion,  are  bound  to  have 
them  baptized?  and  whether  a  gospel  minister  in  such  circum- 
stances ought  to  baptize  them  ?  The  Synod  answered  both  ques- 
tions in  the  affirmative. 

Under  this  head  of  general  regulations,  may  be  properly  intro- 
duced a  plan,  originally  proposed  by  certain  elders  in  Philadelphia, 
and  which,  having  been  sanctioned  by  the  Synod,  was  repeatedly 
urged  upon  the  churches  and  Presbyteries  under  the  name  of  '  The 
Plan  of  the  Lay  Elders.'     It  proposed, 

"  1.  That  in  every  congregation  a  committee  be  appointed,  who 
shall  twice  in  every  year  collect  the  minister's  stipend,  and  lay  his 
receipts  before  the  Presbytery  preceding  the  Synod ;  and  that  min- 
isters at  the  same  time  give  an  account  of  their  diligence  in  visit- 
ing and  catechizing  their  people. 

"  2.  The  Synod  recommends  that  a  glebe,  with  a  convenient 
house  and  necessary  improvements  be  provided  for  every  minister. 

"  3.  That  the  church  sessions  and  committees  appointed,  take 
special  care  of  their  poor  or  distressed  widows  and  orphans,  and 
administer  all  the  relief  and  assistance  they  can. 

"  4.  The  Synod  recommends  to  the  church  sessions  and  com- 
mittees aforesaid,  that  they  endeavour  to  prevent  all  unnecessary 
lawsuits  ;  and  if  possible,  to  have  all  differences  of  a  civil  nature 
decided  by  arbitration. 

"  5.  The  Synod  enjoin  that  exact  registers  of  births,  baptisms, 
marriages,  and  deaths,  be  regularly  kept  in  each  congregation. 

"  6.  That  special  care  be  taken  of  the  principles  and  character 
of  school-masters,  that  they  teach  the  Westminster  Catechism  and 
psalmody,  and  that  the  ministers,  church  sessions,  and  aforesaid 
committees,  (where  they  consistently  can,)  visit  the  schools,  and 
see  these  things  be  done.  And  where  schools  are  composed  of 
different  denominations,  that  said  committees  and  sessions  invite 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  841 

proper  persons  of  said  denominations,  to  join  with  them  in  such 
visitations. 

"  7.  That  as  the  too  great  use  of  spirituous  liquors  at  funerals, 
in  some  parts  of  the  country,  is  risen  to  such  a  height  as  greatly 
to  endanger  the  morals  of  many,  and  is  the  cause  of  much  scandal, 
the  Synod  earnestly  enjoin  that  the  several  sessions  and  committees 
shall  take  the  most  effectual  methods  to  correct  these  mischiefs, 
and  discountenance  by  their  example  and  influence,  all  approaches 
to  said  practices,  and  all  ostentatious  and  expensive  parade,  so  in- 
consistent with  such  mortifying  and  distressing  occasions."* 

This  plan  was  proposed  in  1766,  and  adopted  in  1767 ;  and  the 
clerk  was  directed  to  send  a  copy  to  the  moderator  of  each  Pres- 
bytery, to  be  communicated  to  the  people,  and  the  Presbyteries 
were  directed  to  take  all  proper  means  to  carry  it  into  execution. 
And  year  after  year  inquiry  was  made  how  far  the  business  had 
been  attended  to. 

To  this  head  also  belongs  an  overture  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
presented  to  the  Synod  in  1787.  It  was  in  the  following  words : 
"  The  Creator  of  the  world  having  made  of  one  blood  all  the  chil- 
dren of  men,  it  becomes  them  as  members  of  the  same  family  to 
consult  and  promote  each  other's  happiness.  It  is  more  especially 
the  duty  of  those  who  maintain  the  rights  of  humanity,  and  teach 
the  obligations  of  Christianity,  to  use  such  means  as  are  in  their 
power  to  extend  the  blessings  of  equal  freedom  to  every  part  of 
the  human  race. 

"  From  a  full  conviction  of  these  truths,  and  sensible  that  the 
rights  of  human  nature  are  too  well  understood  to  admit  of  debate ; 
overtured  that  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  recom- 
mend in  the  warmest  terms  to  every  member  of  their  body,  and  to 
all  the  families  and  churches  under  their  care,  to  do  every  thing  in 
their  power,  consistent  with  the  rights  of  civil  society,  to  promote 
the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  instruction  of  negroes,  whether 
bond  or  free." 

On  this  overture  the  Synod  passed  the  following  judgment : 
"  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  do  highly  approve  of 

*  Minutes,  pp.  142  and  1G4. 


342  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

the  general  principles  in  favour  of  universal  liberty  which  prevail 
in  America,  and  the  interest  which  many  of  the  states  have  taken 
in  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery :  yet  inasmuch  as  men  intro- 
duced from  a  servile  state  to  a  participation  of  all  the  privileges  of 
civil  society,  without  a  proper  education,  and  without  previous 
habits  of  industry,  may  be  in  many  respects  dangerous  to  the  com- 
munity ;  therefore  they  earnestly  recommend  it  to  all  the  members 
belonging  to  their  communion,  to  give  those  persons  who  are  at 
present  held  in  servitude,  such  good  education  as  to  prepare  them 
for  the  better  enjoyment  of  freedom.  And  they  moreover  recom- 
mend that  masters,  whenever  they  find  servants  disposed  to  make 
a  just  improvement  of  the  privilege,  would  give  them  a  peculium, 
or  grant  them  time  and  sufficient  means  of  procuring  their  own 
liberty  at  a  moderate  rate ;  that  thereby  they  may  be  brought  into 
society  with  those  habits  of  industry  that  may  render  them  useful 
citizens.  And  finally  they  recommend  it  to  all  their  people  to  use 
the  most  prudent  measures  consistent  with  the  interests  and  the 
state  of  civil  society,  in  the  countries  where  they  live,  to  procure 
eventually  the  final  abolition  of  slavery  in  America." 

GENERAL    SUPERVISION. 

The  Synod  exercised  a  general  supervision  over  their  members 
and  Presbyteries,  designed  to  secure  adherence  to  the  rules  of  the 
church,  and  the  proper  discharge  of  ecclesiastical  duties.  The 
nature  of  this  supervision  may  be  inferred  from  the  few  following 
illustrations :  —  The  Rev.  Mr.  Leonard  having  absented  himself 
for  several  years  from  the  meetings  of  Synod,  a  letter  was  written 
to  inform  him,  that  unless  he  either  attended,  or  gave  satisfactory 
reasons  for  his  absence,  he  should  be  disowned  as  a  member.* 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Bay,  having  removed  from  the  bounds  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Castle,  to  within  those  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Dutchess,  without  transferring  his  presbyterial  relation,  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Dutchess  were  directed  to  call  upon  him  to  procure  a 
regular  dismission  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  and  to  con- 
nect himself  with  their  body.f     In  1773,  the  second  Presbytery 

*  Minutes,  pp.  44  and  77.  f  Ibid.  p.  214. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  343 

of  Philadelphia  received  the  Rev.  Hugh  Magill,  who  had  been  sus- 
pended from  the  ministry  in  Ireland  by  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  which  he  was  a  member.  The  Synod  thinking  that  the  Phila- 
delphia Presbytery  had  not  sufficient  evidence  of  the  grounds  of 
his  suspension  to  authorize  them  to  disregard  it,  or  sufficient  tes- 
timonials in  favour  of  the  applicant,  reversed  the  judgment  by 
which  he  was  received,  and  refused  to  recognize  him  as  a  member. 
This  gentleman  afterwards  satisfied  the  Synod  of  his  good  charac- 
ter, and  was  regularly  received.*  The  same  year  the  Presbytery 
of  Donegal  reported  that  they  had  received  the  Rev.  Messrs.  David 
McCuer  and  Levi  Frisby ;  but  as  it  appeared  that  they  were  in  the 
service  of  the  board  of  correspondents  from  the  society  in  Scot- 
land, and  appointed  to  an  Indian  mission,  and  had  not  been  dis- 
missed from  the  ecclesiastical  council  by  which  they  were  ordained 
in  New  England,  (and  which  probably  ceased  to  exist  as  soon  as 
the  ordination  was  effected,)  the  Synod  reversed  the  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  receiving  them  to  full  membership,  but  approved 
of  their  taking  them  under  their  care  while  they  were  labouring 
occasionally  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery. f 

In  1783,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  reported  that  they  had 
left  the  name  of  the  Rev.  William  Woodhull  out  of  their  list  of 
members,  because,  on  account  of  feeble  health,  he  had  relinquished 
his  ministerial  duties.  The  Synod  deeming  this  reason  to  be  insuf- 
ficient, directed  his  name  to  be  restored  to  the  roll.  A  similar  case 
was  brought  up  in  1785.  The  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  reported 
that  as  the  Rev.  Joseph  Montgomery,  from  bodily  indisposition, 
was  unable  to  preach,  and  had  accepted  an  office  under  the  civil 
authority,  they  had  struck  his  name  from  their  roll.  The  Synod 
disapproved  of  the  omission  of  the  name,  and  recommended  "  to 
all  Presbyteries,  when  any  ministers  under  their  inspection  resigned 
their  charge,  or  discontinued  the  exercise  of  their  office,  while  they 
remain  in  the  same  bounds,  to  pass  a  regular  judgment  on  the  rea- 
sons given  for  such  conduct ;  and  to  continue  their  inspection  of 
those  who  shall  not  have  deserved  to  be  deprived  of  the  minis- 
terial character,  though  they  may  be  laid  aside  from  immediate 
usefulness."! 

*  Minutes,  pp.  271,  318,  338.  t  Ibid.  p.  271.  J  Ibid.  pp.  415,  421. 


344 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 


APPELLATE    JURISDICTION. 


The  Synod,  as  the  highest  judicatory  in  the  church,  was  fre- 
quently called  upon  to  decide  references,  complaints,  or  appeals 
from  the  lower  courts.  Some  of  these  cases  are  interesting  as 
matters  of  history,  or  instructive  on  account  of  the  principles  which 
they  involve.  In  1759,  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  referred  to 
the  Synod  the  decision  of  a  question  relating  to  a  call  from  the 
First  Presbyterian  Church  in  that  city,  for  the  Rev.  Harry  Munro. 
The  Synod,  after  due  consideration,  decided  that  although  some 
confusion  had  attended  the  vote  of  the  congregation  in  relation  to 
this  matter,  yet,  as  the  great  majority  of  the  people  were  in  favour 
of  the  call,  the  vote  ought  to  be  considered  so  far  legal,  that  the 
Presbytery  be  allowed  to  present  it  to  Mr.  Munro.  The  Synod, 
however,  expressed  great  disapprobation  of  the  insulting  and  in- 
jurious manner  in  which  they  had  been  treated  by  some  of  the 
persons  prosecuting  the  call,  and  exhorted  the  minority  of  the  con- 
gregation to  acquiesce  in  the  wishes  of  the  majority.*  It  does  not 
appear  that  this  call  was  ever  prosecuted  any  further. 

In  1763,  an  appeal  was  presented  by  the  Second  Church  in 
Philadelphia,  from  a  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  respect- 
ing the  removal  of  Mr.  Duffield.  The  Synod  finding  that  the  con- 
gregations of  Carlisle  and  Big  Spring,  of  which  Mr.  Duffield  was 
then  the  pastor,  had  not  had  due  notice  in  the  case,  remitted  the 
affair  to  the  Presbytery ;  directing  them  to  meet  at  Carlisle  upon  a 
given  day,  and  decide  the  matter. f  As  all  parties  acquiesced  in 
the  decision  of  the  Presbytery,  the  case  was  not  again  brought 
before  the  Synod.  A  few  years  afterwards  this  same  congregation 
appealed  from  a  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Suffolk,  unfavour- 
able to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Mills  from  Jamaica  to  Philadelphia. 
After  hearing  all  the  parties,  the  Synod  affirmed  the  decision  of 
the  Presbytery. | 

In  1765,  the  people  of  New  Castle  and  Christiana  Bridge  ap- 
pealed from  a  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  respect- 
ing their  call    to  Mr.  Megaw.     "  All  parties  being  long  and  pa- 

*  Minutes,  pp.  20,  22.  f  Ibid.  p.  92.  J  Ibid,  fur  1707,  p.  109 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  345 

tiently  heard,  the  Synod,"  it  is  said,  "  on  the  whole  do  judge  that 
the  said  Presbytery  have  acted  a  very  cautious  and  Christian  part 
in  making  such  a  stand  against  bigotry  and  party  spirit  in  those 
congregations,  and  striving  so  long  to  prevent  a  breach  of  a  suleinn 
union  stipulated  between  those  societies,  and  therefore  cannot  but 
highly  disapprove  and  condemn  the  indecent  language  of  their 
appeal,  and  their  bitter  insinuations  of  injustice  from  that  our 
worthy  Presbytery.  And  as  it  appears  there  was  at  least  a  very 
considerable  opposition  made  against  presenting  said  call,  the  Pres 
bytery  might  prudently  delay  it,  with  a  view,  if  possible,  to  obtain 
a  greater  union  in  Mr.  Megaw,  or  some  other  person.  However, 
as  more  light  in  the  course  of  the  trial  has  been  thrown  on  the 
affair  than  was  given  by  the  congregation  to  the  Presbytery,  it  now 
appears  the  call  had  better  be  presented  to  Mr.  Megaw ;  and  as 
the  Presbytery  assure  us  that  they  never  intended  to  meddle  with 
the  civil  property  of  their  meeting-houses,  even  in  the  alternative 
proposed  to  those  societies,  which  was  only  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
we  leave  them  to  settle  that  matter  according  to  their  own  articles 
of  union,  and  to  determine  the  qualifications  of  their  own  voters ; 
earnestly  recommending  it  to  both  parties,  in  the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness, to  compromise  their  own  differences,  to  maintain  their  union 
inviolable,  and  to  follow  the  things  which  make  for  peace  and  edifi- 
cation."* 

The  same  year  a  reference  was  brought  in  from  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle,  requesting  their  judgment  whether  the  Rev.  John 
Rodgers  should  be  removed  from  St.  George's  to  New  York,  in 
compliance  with  a  call  from  the  latter  place.  After  hearing  the 
commissioners  from  both  congregations,  the  Synod  decided  that 
Mr.  Rodgers  should  remove,  and  accordingly  "  declared  his  pas- 
toral relation  to  the  congregation  of  St.  George's  to  be  dissolved. "f 

In  1771,  the  Third  Presbyterian  church  of  Philadelphia,  in  Pine- 
street,  presented  a  call  for  the  Rev.  George  Duffield,  of  Carlisle, 
to  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  with  the  request  that  it 
might  be  forwarded  to  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  to  be  placed  in 
Mr.  Duffield's  hands.     The  Presbytery,  after  much  consideration, 

*  Minutes,  pp.  120,  121.  t  Ibid.  p.  118. 


346  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

refused  permission  for  the  prosecution  of  the  call.  The  principal 
reasons  assigned  in  their  minutes  for  this  judgment,  are,  that  the 
whole  session  were  opposed  to  the  call,  and  cautioned  the  people 
against  proceeding  in  the  business ;  that  the  call  was  never  read  to 
the  people,  nor  made  out  at  public  meeting,  but  handed  about  and 
signed  by  the  people  separately ;  that  in  virtue  of  a  compact  be- 
tween the  First  church  in  Market-street  and  the  Pine-street  church, 
their  ministers  were  to  preach  in  rotation  at  the  two  houses,  and  in 
case  of  a  vacancy  in  either,  a  new  pastor  was  not  to  be  chosen  by 
the  one  church  without  the  concurrence  of  the  other,  "  or  at  lea.^t 
the  vacant  church  should  study  to  choose  a  minister  who  should  be 
generally  agreeable  to  a  majority  of  the  members  of  each  house;" 
yet  in  the  present  case  the  Market-street  congregation  had  not 
been  consulted,  and  had  appeared  before  the  Presbytery  and  re- 
monstrated against  the  prosecution  of  the  call.  The  Presbytery 
therefore  decided  that  they  had  no  right  to  set  aside  the  agreement 
between  the  two  congregations,  or  to  decide  the  claim  of  property 
advanced  by  the  Market-street  people  in  the  Pine-street  building ; 
and  therefore  could  not  allow  the  call  to  be  forwarded.  They, 
however,  earnestly  exhorted  the  two  congregations  to  meet  and 
endeavour  to  remove  the  difficulty ;  and  in  case  this  was  done,  the 
Presbytery  promised  to  meet  as  soon  as  requested,  and  send  the 
call  to  the  Presbytery  to  which  Mr.  Duffield  belonged.  From  this 
decision  the  congregation  appealed.  The  Presbytery  entered  the 
appeal,  only  requiring  that  due  notice  should  be  given  them  whe- 
ther it  was  to  be  prosecuted  before  the  Synod  or  the  commission."* 
When  the  case  came  before  the  Synod,  in  1773,  the  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  was  reversed  by  a  great  majority,  and  it  was  voted 
that  the  Third  church  should  be  allowed  to  prosecute  their  call  be- 
fore the  Presbytery  of  Donegal.  From  this  decision,  Messrs. 
Alexander  McDowell,  Matthew  Wilson,  John  Miller,  and  James 
Latta,  dissented,  and  assigned  substantially  the  following  reasons : 
1.  Because  a  vote  to  prosecute  a  call,  without  any  concuiTence  of 
the  eldership,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  their  solemn  caution,  and 
a  call  made  when  not  half  the  people  were  present,  is  a  new  mode 

*  Minutes  of  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  pp.  96-104. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  347 

of  proceeding  among  us,  and  a  dangerous  precedent,  and  cause  of 
anarchy  and  confusion.  2.  Because  the  decision  affected  the  inte- 
rests of  the  Market-street  congregation,  and  yet  their  commission- 
ers were  not  heard  in  the  case.  3.  It  was,  moreover,  inconsistent 
with  the  solemn  compact  between  the  two  congregations.  This 
strange  judgment  of  the  Synod  was  founded  on  the  erroneous  as- 
sumption that  the  aforesaid  compact  gave  one  society  a  domination 
over  the  other ;  whereas  it  appears,  the  ministers  were  to  preach 
in  rotation,  and  to  be  chosen  by  a  majority  of  both  congregations. 
4.  The  votes  of  the  Synod  in  the  present  case  were  directly  the 
reverse  of  those  passed  in  the  case  of  New  Castle  and  Christiana, 
which  was  of  a  similar  character,  and  therefore  the  judgment  ap- 
peared partial.  5.  The  decision  was  hurried  through  in  a  precipi- 
tate and  unusual  manner.  6.  The  Synod's  decision  tended  to  in- 
jure the  right  of  property  of  the  Market-street  congregation  in 
the  Pine-street  church,  which  they  began  and  carried  on  at  a  great 
expense.  To  these  reasons  the  Synod  replied,  that  though  the 
dissenting  brethren  had  a  right  to  record  their  reasons  in  their  own 
words,  the  Synod  had  a  right  to  say  that  they  proceeded  on  a  mis- 
taken view  of  the  facts,  and  have  misrepresented  the  same,  par- 
ticularly as  to  the  dissolving  contracts,  and  deciding  questions  of 
property.  The  commissioners  from  the  First  church  remonstrated 
against  this  decision,  and  requested  to  know  whether  it  was  final, 
and  whether  the  call  to  Mr.  Duffield  "was  to  their  church  in  Pine- 
street,  as  a  minister  to  officiate  in  that  church."  The  Synod  re- 
plied very  briefly  that  they  considered  their  minutes  a  sufficient 
answer  to  both  questions,  and  recommended  to  the  parties,  if  they 
had  disputes  about  property,  not  to  go  to  law,  but  to  submit  the 
matter  to  arbitration.  The  session  of  the  church  in  Pine-street  then 
applied  to  the  Synod  for  their  advice  whether  they  should  continue 
to  act  as  elders  in  that  congregation.  The  Synod  advised  them  to 
continue  in  the  exercise  of  their  office,  unless  their  sense  of  duty 
prevented  "their  acting  on  the  decision  of  the  Synod."  In  that 
case  they  might  "  resign  and  allow  the  congregation  to  choose 
elders  who  may  have  freedom  to  act  according  to  the  determination 
of  the  Synod."* 

*  Minutes,  pp.  263,  366,  367. 


348  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Synod,  in  1773,  Mr.  Duffield  intro- 
duced a  complaint  against  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
because  "  they  had,  by  one  of  their  ministers,  obstructed  hia 
entrance  to  a  church  in  this  city  under  their  care,  to  which  he  had 
accepted  a  call ;  and  had  also  refused  to  receive  him  as  a  member, 
although  he  was  dismissed  from,  and  recommended  by,  the  Presby- 
tery of  Donegal."  The  minutes  of  the  second  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia,* assigning  their  reasons  for  their  conduct,  were  read;  and 
also,  "  a  petition  from  the  incorporated  committee,  (trustees,)  of 
the  Presbyterian  churches  in  Market  and  Pine  streets,  setting  forth 
that  Mr.  Duffield,  by  the  assistance  of  a  part  of  the  congregation 
in  Pine-street,  had  taken  forcible  possession  of  their  church  in  Pine- 
street,  on  the  27th  day  of  September  last,  and  praying  us  to  afford 
them  such  relief  as  the  nature  of  the  case  required  from  us."  The 
Pine-street  congregation  also  presented  their  account  of  the  matter, 
and  after  all  the  parties  were  fully  heard,  the  Synod  decided  "  That 
Mr.  Duffield  had  just  cause  of  complaint  against  the  judgment  of 
the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  who  ought  to  have  admitted 
him  and  allowed  him  a  fair  trial ;  therefore  we  declare  him  to  be 
minister  of  Pine-street,  or  Third  Presbyterian  congregation  in  this 
city,  [without  installation,  or  Presbyterial  induction  ?]  and  order 
that  he  be  put  on  the  list  of  the  aforesaid  Presbytery. "f  This  may 
have  been  all  right ;  but  it  is  certainly  pretty  high  Presbyterianism 
for  these  new-side  brethren.  The  question  whether  the  Presbytery 
would  obey  the  order  of  the  Synod  to  place  Mr.  Duffield's  name  on 
their  list  of  members,  was  not  brought  to  an  issue,  as  at  the  joint 
request  of  himself  and  congregation,  they  were  disconnected  from 
the  second,  and  attached  to  the  first  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia.^ 

In  1772,  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  presented  a  complaint 
against  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  for  licensing  a  can- 
didate who  was  properly  under  their  care,  and  in  regard  to  whose 

*  There  is  a  chasm  in  the  records  of  this  Presbytery  from  1772  to  1781. 
That  portion  of  the  minutes  was  never  transcribed  into  the  Presbytery  book, 
and  the  original  papers,  it  is  stated,  were  lost,  at  the  time  of  Dr.  Alison's 
death,  in  whose  possession  they  were.  The  reasons,  therefore,  offered  by  the 
Presbytery  to  justify  their  opposition  to  Mr.  Duffield's  settlement,  cannot  now 
be  learned.  f  Minutes,  p.  285.  %  Ibid.  p.  288. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  349 

character  they  were  engaged  in  making  inquiries.  Both  Presby- 
teries were  fully  heard  in  the  case,  and  the  Synod  decided  that  the 
Presbytery  of  New  Castle  should  have  power  to  cite  the  candidate 
in  question,  hear  all  the  charges  against  him,  and  issue  the  affair 
in  a  regular  manner ;  and  that  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia be  prohibited  employing  him  until  a  final  decision  of  the 
case.* 

The  same  year  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  made  a  complaint 
against  the  same  Philadelphia  Presbytery  for  sending  a  Mr.  Ken- 
nedy to  preach  within  their  bounds.  The  Synod  decided  that  this 
complaint  was  founded  on  misapprehension  ;  and  directed  Mr.  Ken- 
nedy to  put  himself  under  the  care  of  the  Donegal  Presbytery, 
until  they  could  hear  and  decide  upon  any  charges  which  might  be 
brought  against  him.  After  some  difficulty  on  his  part,  the  case 
was  finally  brought  to  trial  before  that  Presbytery,  who  decided  to 
prohibit  his  preaching  any  longer  as  a  candidate,  on  account  of  the 
errors  in  doctrine,  and  schismatical  and  objectionable  conduct  of 
which  they  found  him  guilty,  f  Mr.  Kennedy  subsequently  pre- 
sented to  the  Synod  a  complaint  against  the  Presbytery,  which  was 
dismissed  as  frivolous. | 

In  1774,  an  appeal  was  presented  from  a  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Castle,  relating  to  a  call  for  the  Rev.  Joseph  Smith. 
After  an  ineffectual  attempt  to  compromise  the  difficulty,  the  Synod 
decided  that  Mr.  Smith  should  be  allowed  to  accept  the  call  put 
into  his  hands  by  the  Presbytery,  which  call  was  to  be  described  as 
from  the  Second  church  in  Wilmington  united  with  Brandywine  ; 
and  that  he  be  directed  to  preach  half  his  time  in  the  city  and 
half  in  the  country,  taking  care  that  his  clays  of  preaching  in  town 
should  not  interfere  with  the  appointments  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  McKen- 

*  Minutes,  p.  267. 

f  Of  this  trial  a  long  account  is  given  in  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Donegal  for  1773,  pp.  93-113.  During  the  trial,  Mr.  Kennedy  withdrew  in 
an  insulting  manner,  and  the  Presbytery  decided,  that  as  his  absence  was  vol- 
untary, it  was  their  duty  to  proceed  with  the  case  and  bring  it  to  a  decision  . 
which  they  accordingly  did. 

%  Minutes  of  Synod,  p.  330. 


350  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

nan ;  and  the  members  of  that  Presbytery  were  earnestly  exhorted 
to  cultivate  peace,  and  to  strengthen  each  other's  hands.* 

In  1770,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bay  appealed  from  a  decision  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  by  which  the  pastoral  relation  between 
himself  and  congregation  had  been  dissolved.  The  Synod  affirmed 
the  decision  of  the  Presbytery,  except  so  far  as  it  interfered  with 
questions  of  property,  which  they  said  ought  to  be  referred  to 
arbitrators. f 

In  1782,  the  Rev.  James  Finley  appealed  from  a  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  respecting  his  removal  from  his  con- 
gregation. The  Synod  having  heard  all  the  parties,  decided  "  that 
the  pastoral  relation  between  Mr.  Finley  and  his  congregation 
ought  to  be  dissolved,  and  they  do  accordingly  dissolve  it. "J 

EXTRAORDINARY    POWERS. 1.    THE    COMMISSION. 

It  appears  from  this  review,  that  all  the  functions  of  a  Presby- 
terian Synod  were  performed  by  this  body  as  regularly  as  by  any 
similar  judicatory  during  any  period  of  our  history.  In  this  as  in 
all  the  preceding  cases,  however,  we  find  this  Synod  conforming  to 
the  usages  of  the  Scottish  church,  in  the  use  of  a  commission,  in 
the  exercise  of  Presbyterial  powers,  and  in  the  appointment  of 
committees  with  synodical  authority.  In  1758,  when  the  union 
took  place,  it  was  resolved,  "  That  the  commissions  appointed  be- 
fore by  the  two  Synods,  with  the  present  moderator,  be  together 
the  commission  of  this  Synod  for  the  present  year."§  Such  a 
body  continued  to  be  regularly  appointed  until  the  formation  of  our 
present  constitution.  In  1774,  "  it  was  moved  and  seconded,  whe- 
ther a  commission  shall  be  appointed  and  their  powers  defined,  or 
whether  the  practice  should  be  discontinued?"  In  answer  to  this 
query  the  Synod  adopted  the  following  minute :  "  Whereas  there 
have  arisen  doubts  in  the  minds  of  some  members  respecting  the 
utility  and  powers  of  what  is  called  by  us  The  Commission,  the 
Synod  proceeded  to  take  this  matter  into  consideration,  and  after  due 

*  Minutes,  p.  304.  f  Ibid.  p.  341.  J  Ibid.  p.  385.  g  Ibid.  p.  9. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  351 

deliberation,  in  order  to  remove  any  scruple  upon  this  head,  and 
prevent  all  future  difficulties  in  this  matter,  do  determine  that  the 
commission  shall  continue,  and  meet  whensoever  called  by  the  mo- 
derator, at  the  request  of  the  first  nine  in  the  roll  of  the  commis- 
sion, or  a  major  part  of  the  first  nine  ministers,  and  when  met, 
that  it  shall  be  invested  with  all  the  powers  of  the  Synod,  and  sit 
by  their  own  adjournments  from  time  to  time ;  and  let  it  be  also 
duly  attended  to,  that  there  can  be  no  appeal  from  the  judgment 
of  the  commission,  as  there  can  be  none  from  the  judgment  of  the 
Synod ;  but  there  may  be  a  review  of  their  proceedings  and  judg- 
ments by  the  Synod ;  and  whensoever  this  is  done,  those  who  sat 
as  members  of  the  commission  shall  be  present  and  assist  in  form- 
ing all  such  judgments  as  the  Synod  may  think  proper  to  make 
upon  any  such  review."* 

2.    PRESBYTERIAL    POWERS    EXERCISED    BY    THE    SYNOD. 

The  examples  of  the  exercise  of  Presbyterial  powers  on  the  part 
of  the  Synod  are  very  numerous.  Besides  acting  as  a  missionary 
body,  the  Synod  did  not  hesitate  to  appoint  supplies  for  particular 
congregations,  whenever  occasion  demanded  it.  Thus  in  1760,  it 
was  "  ordered  that  Mr.  Laurence  supply  Mr.  Beatty's  pulpit  the 
first  and  second  Sabbaths  of  June ;  Mr.  Treat  the  third  Sabbath ; 
Mr.  Ramsay  the  fourth  and  fifth  Sabbaths;"  and  so  on  for  several 
months.  In  1763,  Mr.  Gilbert  Tennent,  in  consequence  of  the 
state  of  his  health,  requested  the  Synod  to  supply  his  pulpit  during 
the  summer ;  and  the  Synod  accordingly  appointed  supplies  from 
all  the  neighbouring  Presbyteries.  When  the  Synod  sent  any  set- 
tled minister  on  any  special  mission,  they  either  themselves  ap- 
pointed supplies  for  his  pulpit,  or  directed  his  Presbytery  to  do  it ; 
and  not  unfrequently  directed  one  Presbytery  to  supply  within  the 
bounds  of  another.  In  1765,  for  example,  it  was  "ordered  that 
the  Presbytery  of  Lewistown  supply  Mr.  Ramsay's  congregation, 
(which  belonged  to  the  first  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,)  eight 
Sabbaths ;  Mr.  J.  Finley  and  Mr.  McKennan,  (of  the  Presbytery 

*  Minutes,  p.  305. 


352  PRESBYTERIAN     CIIURCH 

of  New  Castle,)  each  one  Sabbath  ;  and  the  first  Presb}7tery  of 
Philadelphia  the  rest  of  the  time.  Ordered,  that  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Brunswick  supply  Mr.  Latta's  pulpit,  (who  belonged  to  the 
second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,)  sixteen  Sabbaths,  and  the 
second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  the  rest  of  the  time,"  and 
s-o  on.* 

At  present  no  minister  is  admitted  as  a  member  of  Synod  except 
in  virtue  of  his  belonging  to  some  Presbytery  in  connection  with 
the  body.  Formerly,  however,  the  Synod  itself  entertained  applica- 
tions for  admission,  examined,  received,  and  even  ordained  mem- 
bers. In  1758,  application  was  made  to  the  Synod  from  a  Welsh 
congregation,  praying  them  to  ordain  Mr.  John  Griffith ;  and  the 
Synod  finding  that  he  had  regular  certificates  from  Wales,  and 
that  several  of  their  members  were  well  acquainted  with  him  as  a 
man  of  Clmstian  character  and  experience,  agreed,  "  That  the  said 
John  Griffith,  though  he  has  not  the  measure  of  school  learning 
usually  required,  and  which  they  judge  to  be  ordinarily  requisite, 
be  ordained  to  the  work  of  the  ministry ;  and  appointed  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Davies,  Dr.  Alison,  Mr.  Treat,  Mr.  Hunter,  and  Mr.  Kit- 
tletas,  to  be  a  Presbytery  pro  re  nata  to  ordain  him  to-morrow 
morning  at  eleven  o'clock."  This  service  was  accordingly  per- 
formed, and  it  was  ordered  that  Mr.  Griffith  belong  to  the  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia. f 

In  1765,  the  Rev.  Jonathan  Leavitt,  after  adopting  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  and  promising  to  conform  himself  to 
the  Westminster  Directory,  was  received  by  the  Synod  and  advised 
to  put  himself  under  the  care  of  some  one  of  our  Presbyteries.  J 

In  1777,  the  Rev.  James  Wharton  of  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania,  applied  to  be  received  as  a  member ;  and  the 
Synod  having  conversed  with  him,  and  heard  at  considerable  length 
his  sentiments  on  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  terms  of  Chris- 
tian and  ministerial  communion,  and  having  had  sufficient  testi- 
monials of  his  moral  character,  and  of  his  good  standing  in  the 
ministry  in  the  church  of  which  he  has  been  a  member,  unani- 

*  Minutes,  p.  128.  f  U>id-  PP-  8,  10.  %  Ibid.  p.  127. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  353 

♦nously  agreed  to  receive  him,  and  appointed  him  a  memher  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Donegal.* 

In  1774,  tne  Rev.  Samuel  Blair,  formerly  in  connection  with  the 
Synod,  requested  to  be  enrolled  as  a  member ;  which  request  was 
granted,  and  he  accordingly  took  his  seat ;  and  the  Synod  desired 
Mr.  Blair  to  connect  himself  with  some  Presbytery  as  soon  as  con- 
venient, f 

The  case  of  the  Rev,  Mr.  Magill  also  belongs  to  this  head.  In 
1773,  he  was  received  by  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
but  the  Synod  reversed  their  judgment.  In  1775,  he  presented 
additional  testimonials,  and  the  Synod  decided,  "  that  they  could 
not  at  present  receive  him  as  a  member,"  but  being  anxious  to  do 
all  they  could  for  his  relief,  appointed  Dr.  Rodgers  to  endeavour  to 
obtain  light  as  to  his  case  from  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Mona- 
ghan  in  Ireland,  and  Dr.  Witherspoon  from  the  Associate  Synod 
in  Edinburgh.  In  1776,  the  Synod  received  him  as  a  member  of 
the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  and  appointed  him  to  sup- 
ply for  eight  months  in  the  western  parts  of  Pennsylvania,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal. 

In  1785,  the  Rev.  John  Hiddleson,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Bel- 
fast, in  Ireland,  presented  his  credentials,  and  requested  to  be 
received  as  a  member  of  Synod.  A  committee  was  appointed  to 
examine  his  credentials,  and  "  to  converse  with  the  young  gentle- 
man," and  to  report  their  opinion  of  his  case.  That  committee 
reported  that,  in  their  judgment,  he  "  ought  not  at  present  to  be 
annexed  as  a  minister  to  any  Presbytery  belonging  to  the  Synod ; 
but,  if  he  chooses,  he  may  commit  himself  to  the  care  of  some 
Presbytery,  who  shall  proceed  with  him  as  they  may  judge  best, 
and  make  report  to  the  Synod  at  their  next  meeting."  This  report 
was  adopted. £ 

In  1786,  the  testimonials  of  the  Rev.  James  Thorn,  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Dundee,  in  Scotland,  were  laid  before  the  Synod  and 
approved.  Whereupon  he  was  admitted  to  join  himself  to  any 
Presbytery  belonging  to  this  body  ;  and,  being  present,  he  was 
invited  to  sit  as  a  correspondent^ 

*  Minutes,  p.  347.     f  Ibid.  p.  307.     J  Ibid.  pp.  424,  426.     \  Ibid.  p.  438. 
VOL.  II.— 23 


354  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

In  1787,  "the  testimonials  of  Mr.  John  Young,  a  pvohationei 
from  the  Presbytery  of  Irvine,  in  Scotland,  accompanied  by  cor- 
roborating evidential  letters,  were  laid  before  the  Synod  and  ap- 
proved, and  he  had  leave  to  put  himself  under  the  care  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York." 

The  Synod  also  acted  more  or  less  in  a  presbyterial  capacity,  in 
allowing  calls  from  congregations  to  be  addressed. to  them  for  par- 
ticular ministers.  In  1765,  a  call  from  Catry's  settlement,  in  North 
Carolina,  for  the  Rev.  Mr.  Spencer,  was  brought  into  Synod,  and 
presented  to  him.  At  the  same  time,  a  call  from  Hopewell  and 
Centre  congregations,  in  the  same  state,  for  the  Rev.  Mr.  McWhor- 
ter,  was  introduced  ;  but  the  Synod  apprehending  that  some  other 
person  might  more  conveniently  be  sent,  did  not  present  it  to  him.* 

In  1766,  two  calls  for  Mr.  Nathan  Ker,  were  brought  before  the 
Synod  and  given  him  for  his  consideration,  with  the  direction  to 
report  his  answer  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  In  1768,  a  call 
for  Mr.  McCreary,  a  candidate  under  the  care  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  Castle,  was  brought  in  and  read,  and  Mr.  McCreary 's 
answer  requested.  As  he  was  not  prepared  to  give  an  immediate 
reply,  he  was  directed  to  give  his  answer  to  his  Presbytery,  who 
were  requested,  in  case  he  accepted  the  call,  to  ordain  him  as  soon 
as  convenient. j"  In  all  these,  and  in  other  similar  cases,  the  calls 
were  from  distant  congregations  not  under  the  care  of  any  par- 
ticular Presbytery. 

The  Synod  at  times  acted  more  in  a  presbyterial  than  a  synodi- 
cal  capacity,  when  cases  of  discipline  were  referred  to  them.  In 
1771,  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  referred  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Synod,  the  case  of  a  minister  who  had  left  his 
pastoral  charge,  whose  character  laboured  under  serious  charges, 
and  who,  though  twice  cited,  had  refused  to  appear  before  the  Pres- 
bytery, but  had  requested  his  name  to  be  struck  from  their  roll. 
The  Synod,  instead  of  instructing  the  Presbytery  how  to  proceed, 
themselves  took  up  the  case,  directed  Dr.  Rodgers  to  prepare  a 
citation  specifying  the  charges  against  the  accused,  to  be  signed  by 
the  moderator,  and  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  matters,  and 

*  Minutes,  pp.  119,  120.  t  Ibid.  p.  187. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  355 

to  cite  witnesses.  The  accused  was  then  informed  of  the  time  of 
trial,  and  given  to  understand  that  the  citation  then  served  was  to 
be  the  last,  and  that  the  Synod  would  proceed  to  hear  and  issue 
the  case,  whether  he  attended  or  not.  At  the  time  appointed,  the 
accused  appeared  before  the  Synod,  and  made  a  free  confession  of 
the  crimes  laid  to  his  charge,  and  declared  himself  unfeignedly 
sorry  and  deeply  penitent,  for  his  very  offensive  conduct.  And 
the  Synod,  after  prayer  to  God  for  direction,  declared  their  opinion 
that  the  crimes  charged  fully  merited  deposition,  but  in  respect  of 
his  humble  and  penitent  carriage,  it  was  agreed  to  suspend  him 
from  the  exercise  of  his  ministry  sine  die;  and  they  prohibited 
him,  under  pain  of  the  highest  censures  of  the  church,  from  exer- 
cising the  same,  or  any  part  thereof,  within  the  bounds  of  the  Synod 
or  elsewhere ;  and  they  discharged  any  inferior  judicatory  from 
taking  off  this  suspension,  or  from  receiving  any  application  for 
that  purpose.  The  Synod,  moreover,  dissolved  his  pastoral  rela- 
tion to  his  congregation,  and  suspended  him  from  the  sealing  ordi- 
nances of  the  church,  but  left  it  to  the  second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  or  any  other  where  he  might  reside,  to  restore  him 
to  Christian  communion,  upon  his  application,  when  they  shall  see 
proper.  It  was  ordered,  that  he  should  be  publicly  rebuked  by  the 
moderator  from  the  chair,  and  that  this  whole  sentence  should  be 
read  from  the  pulpit  of  his  late  church  on  the  following  Lord's 
day.*  In  1772,  this  gentleman  presented  a  petition  to  the  Synod 
t6  be  restored  to  the  exercise  of  his  ministry,  and  the  Synod,  after 
mature  deliberation,  determined  to  restore  him  for  one  year,  under 
the  particular  care  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  and  the  Rev. 
Mr.  McDowell  was  appointed  to  give  him  a  solemn  admonition  with 
regard  to  his  future  conduct.  He  was  accordingly  called  in,  received 
the  admonition,  and  took  his  seat  as  a  member  of  the  Synod."!* 
The  following  year  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle  reported  that 
they  had  received  him  agreeably  to  the  order  of  the  Synod,  that 
he  had  since  laboured  in  the  work  of  the  ministry  under  their 
direction,  and  behaved  himself  in  a  becoming  and  regular  manner 
as  far  as  was  known  to  them.     The  Synod  then  agreed  to  restore 

*  Minutes,  pp.  239,  240.  t  Ibid.  p.  256. 


356  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

him  fully  to  his  ministry,  and  exhorted  him  to  the  greatest  humility, 
circumspection,  and  meekness,  through  the  remaining  part  of  his 
life.  And  as  he  had  the  prospect  of  labouring  principally  within 
the  bounds  of  the  first  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  he  was  joined 
to  that  body.*  This  whole  proceeding  shows  a  style  of  Presby- 
terianism.  to  which  we  have  been  long  unaccustomed.  The  Synod 
itself  proceeding  to  the  trial  in  the  first  instance,  passing  sentence, 
forbidding  any  Presbytery  to  remove  that  sentence,  themselves  first 
partially,  and  then  fully  restoring  him  to  the  ministry,  and  attach- 
ing him  first  to  one  Presbytery  and  then  to  another,  suppose  the 
doctrine  that  the  Synod  was  a  larger  Presbytery,  and  included 
within  itself  all  the  powers  of  the  lower  judicatories. 

COMMITTEES    WITH    SYNODICAL    POWERS. 

The  appointment  of  committees  with  synodical  powers,  and  send- 
ing correspondents  to  sit  with  a  Presbytery  to  aid  them  in  any  dif- 
ficult business,  were  modes  of  action  in  which  this  Synod  conformed 
to  the  early  usages  of  our  church,  and  to  those  of  the  church  of 
Scotland,  to  a  greater  extent  than  is  now  customary.  In  1759,  a 
complaint  was  presented  against  the  first  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 
but  the  matter  not  being  ready  for  trial,  the  Synod  appointed  the 
existing  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  and  Messrs.  Elder,  Roan,  John 
Miller,  and  Steel,  a  committee  of  the  Synod,  to  meet  at  Chesnut 
Level,  and  take  such  notice  of  the  grounds  of  the  complaint  as 
they  might  judge  necessary. f  In  1761,  an  appeal  from  a  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  was  presented  by  Mr.  Kittle- 
tas,  and  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery,  and  their  reasons  in  sup- 
port of  their  judgment  were  read,  and  then  the  Synod  appointed 
Messrs.  William  Tennent,  Treat,  Hunter,  Alison,  &c.  &c.  a  com- 
mittee, to  meet  at  Princeton,  and  determine  the  whole  matter.^ 
This  committee  reported,  the  following  year,  that  they  met  agree- 
ably to  their  appointment,  and  "  took  the  affair  under  considera- 
tion ;  and  finding  Mr.  Kittletas  was  not  present,  who  sent  sufficient 
reasons  to  excuse  his  absence,  and  earnestly  requested   that   we 

*  Minutes,  p.  276.  f  Ibid.  p.  20.  J  Ibid.  p.  53. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  357 

would  endeavour  to  remove  the  difference  between  him  and  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  ;  it  was  unanimously  resolved,  that  the 
committee  could  not  proceed  in  a  judicial  way  to  determine  the 
cause  while  one  of  the  parties  was  absent ;  that  it  was  thought 
proper  to  confer  with  the  Presbytery,  and  to  remove  all  grounds 
of  complaint  between  him  and  them  if  possible.  It  plainly  ap- 
peared from  what  had  been  acknowledged  both  by  Mr.  Kittletas 
and  the  Presbytery,  that  the  Presbytery  in  dealing  with  him,  in- 
tended only  to  bear  a  testimony,  in  a  moderate  manner,  against 
any  thing  which  deserved  censure  or  admonition,  even  in  a  brother 
for  w7hom  they  had  a  very  high  esteem,  and  that  in  so  doing  they 
did  not  intend  to  suspend  him,  or  re*move  him  from  their  fellow- 
ship as  a  brother,  but  only  to  admonish  him  in  a  friendly  manner, 
and  m  this  the  committee  approve  their  design  ;  and  inasmuch  as 
Mr.  Kittletas  desired  our  assistance  to  remove  all  misunderstand- 
ing, that  he  may  live  in  peace  and  friendship  with  the  Presbytery, 
as  well  as  with  his  other  brethren,  we  have  requested  the  Presby- 
tery to  grant  this  desire,  and  they  have  condescended  to  what  we 
requested,  and  from  henceforth  do  receive  him  into  good  standing 
with  them  without  any  further  censure."* 

It  has  been  often  a  matter  of  dispute  among  Presbyterians,  whe- 
ther it  is  proper  to  proceed  with  the  trial  of  an  accused  person  in 
his  absence,  or  to  the  decision  of  a  case  in  the  absence  of  one  of  the 
parties.  Some  have  maintained  that  if  the  accused  refused  to 
attend  after  due  citation,  or  withdrew  during  the  progress  of  the 
trial,  the  proper  method  was  to  censure,  either  by  rebuke,  sus- 
pension, or  deposition,  as  the  case  might  demand,  for  contumacy, 
but  not  to  proceed  with  the  trial.  This  method  of  proceeding,  it 
has  been  supposed,  sufficiently  protects  the  church,  as  unworthy 
members  or  ministers  may  be  cut  off  though  they  refuse  to  submit 
to  discipline,  while  it  avoids  the  apparent  violation  of  the  princi- 
ples of  justice  in  trying  a  man  in  his  absence.  The  practice  of 
our  church  on  this  point  does  not  seem  to  be  uniform.  In  the  case 
of  Mr.  Kennedy  before  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal,  referred  to 
above,  the  Presbytery  proceeded  with  the  trial,  though  he  refused, 

*  Minutes,  p.  61. 


358  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

after  a  certain  time,  to  attend.  And  in  the  case  referred  to  the 
Synod  by  the  second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  notice  was  sent 
to  the  accused  that  the  Synod  would  proceed  with  the  trial,  whe- 
ther he  attended  or  not.  In  the  above  minute,  however,  we  find 
the  committee  unanimously  resolving  that  they  could  not  proceed 
to  a  judicial  hearing  of  the  case  before  them  in  the  absence  of  one 
of  the  parties.  In  this  latter  instance,  it  is  true,  the  absence  was 
excusable  and  not  contumacious. 

In  1762,  an  appeal  was  brought  in  from  a  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Donegal,  and  a  committee  of  eleven  ministers  was  ap- 
pointed to  examine  into  the  grounds  of  the  complaint,  as  contained 
in  the  appeal,  with  full  liberty  to  consider  the  case,  and  determine 
as  they  should  obtain  light.*  In  1764,  a  certain  John  Harris  pre- 
sented an  appeal  from  a  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 
and  the  Synod  appointed  Mr.  Robert  Smith  and  twelve  other  min- 
isters to  hear  and  try  the  merits  of  the  cause,  and  to  issue  the 
whole  affair. f 

In  1765,  an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  Do- 
negal, respecting  Mr.  Roan  and  Mr.  Edmiston,  was  presented  by 
Mr.  Edmiston,  together  with  a  reference  respecting  the  same  affair, 
by  the  Presbytery ;  and  also  an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the 
said  Presbytery,  by  Mr.  McMurdie.  The  Synod  appointed  a  com- 
mittee of  thirteen,  to  meet  at  Hanover,  and  to  issue  and  deter- 
mine these  matters. J  In  1766,  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Suffolk  was  presented,  and  after  hearing  the  appel- 
lant and  the  Presbytery,  it  was  ordered  that  Messrs.  Rodgers,  Ten- 
nent,  &c.  &c.  be  a  committee  to  meet  each  with  an  elder,  at  Hun- 
tingdon, and  try  and  issue  the  whole  affair. § 

In  1768,  a  petition  was  presented  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sackett. 
praying  the  Synod  to  take  into  consideration  the  differences  be- 
tween him  and  the  Presbytery  of  Dutchess  ;  and  also  a  supplication 
from  the  church  at  Bedford,  Westchester  county,  praying  that  a 
committee  might  be  appointed  to  settle  all  differences  in  their  con- 
gregation. The  Synod  accordingly  appointed  a  committee  of 
eleven  ministers  to  meet  and  examine  into  these  difficulties,  and  to 

*  Minutes,  p.  73.        f  Ibid.  p.  110.  J  Ibid.  p.  113.        \  Ibid.  p.  144, 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  359 

settle  all  differences.  The  following  year  this  committee  reported, 
and  the  Synod  approved  of  their  proceedings,  except  of  so  much 
of  their  judgment  as  disconnected  Mr.  Sackett  from  the  Presby- 
tery of  Dutchess,  and  annexed  him  to  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  ;  which  was  reversed,  and  Mr.  Sackett  returned  to  his  former 
Presbytery.* 

In  1773,  when  the  Presbytery  of  Donegal  were  directed  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  trial  of  Mr.  Kennedy,  they  requested  that  some 
members  of  the  Synod  might  be  joined  with  them  on  the  trial ;  and 
it  was  ordered,  that  Messrs.  Robert  Smith,  Latta,  Foster,  and 
Woodhull,  be  added  to  them  for  that  purpose. "j* 

In  1786,  the  Synod  having  been  informed  that  several  disorders 
had  taken  place  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery  of  Abingdon, 
appointed  a  committee  of  six  ministers  to  meet  at  Salem  church 
with  power  to  cite  such  persons,  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Synod,  who  had  been  concerned  in  these  disorders,  and  if  unani- 
mous, to  give  judgment,  otherwise  to  cite  all  parties  to  appear  be- 
fore the  Synod  at  their  next  meeting.  Dr.  Moses  Hoge  was  the 
only  member  of  the  committee  who  attended ;  the  excuses  of  the 
other  members  were  sustained.  The  difficulties  in  question,  how- 
ever, were  brought  up  by  a  complaint  from  the  Salem  church 
against  the  Presbytery  of  Abingdon.  One  ground  of  this  com- 
plaint, viz. :  that  the  Presbytery  had  licensed  a  young  man  who 
was  under  suspension,  was  found  upon  examination  to  be  unfounded. 
The  Synod  appointed  a  committee  to  confer  with  the  members  of 
the  Presbytery  who  were  at  variance  with  each  other,  and  by  this 
means  a  reconciliation  was  effected.  The  Synod  earnestly  recom- 
mended, inter  alia,  that  so  far  as  questions  about  psalmody  were  con- 
cerned, difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject  should  not  be  made  the 
ground  of  unchristian  censure  against  either  party ;  though  they 
had  allowed  the  use  of  Watts's,  they  were  far  from  disapproving  of 
the  old  version.  The  Synod  at  the  same  time  found  great  fault 
with  a  printed  letter  addressed  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Balch,  and  ascribed 
to  the  Rev.  Wm.  Graham,  and  directed  the  Presbytery  of  Lexing- 
ton to  cite  Mr.  Graham  before  them,  and  ascertain  whether  he  was 
*  Minute*,  pp.  187,  193.  f  Ibid.  p.  278. 


360  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the    author,    and    to    censure    or   acquit  him   as   they  should   see 
cause. 

Our  judicatories  are  sometimes  so  oppressed  with  judicial  busi- 
ness, that  it  might  be  well,  on  some  occasions,  to  resort  to  this  old 
usage  of  our  church,  and  appoint  committees  with  plenary  powers. 
Most  men  would  be  as  willing  to  have  a  cause  in  which  they  were 
interested,  decided  by  ten  good  men  as  by  a  hundred.  Much  time 
would  thus  be  saved,  and  many  details  of  evidence  kept  from 
coming  before  a  large  assembly. 

THE    SYNOD'S    INTERCOURSE    WITH    OTHER    CHURCHES. 

A  liberal  and  catholic  spirit  has  been  characteristic  of  our  church 
from  the  beginning.  It  has  ever  been  ready  to  maintain  Christian 
fellowship  with  all  other  evangelical  denominations.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  spirit  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia, 
soon  after  its  organization,  sought  fraternal  intercourse  with  kindred 
churches  both  in  Europe  and  America.  At  its  first  meeting  in 
1758,  Messrs.  Robert  Cross,  Gilbert  Tennent,  Francis  Alison,  and 
Richard  Treat,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  correspond  in  the 
name  of  the  Synod  with  churches  of  our  persuasion  in  Britain  and 
Ireland,  in  these  colonies  and  elsewhere.*  In  the  minutes  for 
1766,  the  churches  mentioned  as  those  with  whom  this  correspond- 
ence was  to  be  conducted,  were  those  of  Holland,  Switzerland,  the 
General  Assembly  and  the  Secession  Synod  in  Scotland,  the  minis- 
ters in  and  about  London,  the  General  Synod  of  Ireland,  the  min- 
isters of  Dublin,  New  England,  and  the  churches  in  South  Caro- 
lina. The  references  to  this  correspondence  in  the  records  are 
very  frequent ;  but  as  the  letters  written  and  received  are  not  in- 
serted, the  minutes  give  no  information  on  the  subject,  beyond  the 
fact  that  a  friendly  intercourse  with  the  several  bodies  above  men- 
tioned was  maintained,  particularly  with  the  Synod  of  North  Hol- 
land, the  General  Assembly  in  Scotland,  and  the  church  of  Geneva, 
from  all  of  which  letters  were  received. f 

In  1769,  at  the  request  of  several  seceding  ministers,  Dr.  With- 

*  Minutes,  p.  10.  f  Ibid.  pp.  231,  236, 240. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  361 

erspoon  moved  in  Synod,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  converse 
with  them,  with  a  view  to  bring  about  a  union  between  them  and 
this  Synod.  A  petition  was  presented  at  the  same  time  from  seve- 
ral inhabitants  about  Marsh  creek,  praying  that  the  Synod  would 
use  their  endeavour  to  form  a  union  with  the  Seceders.  A  com- 
mittee, of  which  Dr.  Witherspoon  was  chairman,  was  accordingly 
appointed  for  this  purpose.  The  following  year  they  reported, 
that  by  reason  of  several  disappointments  they  had  not  been  able 
to  meet.  In  1771,  it  is  stated  that  this  committee  "  brought  in 
the  minutes  of  their  proceedings,  and  their  conduct  was  highly 
approved."*  Certain  questions  had  been  submitted  to  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery,  to  which  answers  were  reported  to  the  Synod  in 
1772.  For  want  of  time,  however,  they  were  not  read,  but  were 
referred  to  Dr.  Witherspoon  and  others  for  consideration  ;f  who 
the  next  year  reported,  that  as  the  Associate  brethren  had  not 
given  any  answer  to  the  proposal  of  the  committee  of  Synod  made 
the  year  before,  they  had  not  thought  it  proper  to  make  any  fur- 
ther reply  to  those  brethren,  than  that  if  any  thing  was  to  be  done 
further  towards  a  coalition  between  the  Associate  Presbytery  and 
the  Synod,  the  proposal  must  come  from  the  former,  which  the 
committee  would  be  ready  to  receive. J 

This  negotiation  does  not  appear  to  have  been  resumed  until 
1785,  when  the  Synod  was  informed,  "  that  some  of  the  brethren 
of  the  Dutch  Synod,, and  one  of  the  members  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod,  had  expressed  a  desire  of  some  measures  being 
taken  to  promote  a  friendly  intercourse  between  the  three  Synods, 
or  for  laying  a  plan  for  some  kind  of  union  among  them,  whereby 
they  might  be  enabled  to  unite  their  interests  and  combine  their 
efforts  for  promoting  the  cause  of  truth  and  vital  religion ;  and  at 
the  same  time  giving  it  as  their  judgment  that  such  plan  was  prac- 
ticable. The  Synod,"  it  is  added,  "  were  happy  in  finding  such  a 
disposition  in  the  brethren  of  the  above  Synods ;  and  cheerfully 
concur  with  them  in  thinking  that  such  a  measure  is  both  desirable 
and  practicable,  and  therefore  appoint  Dr.  Witherspoon,  Dr.  Jones, 
Dr.  Rodgers,  Dr.  McWhorter,  Dr.  Smith,  Mr.  Duffield,  Mr.  Alex- 

*  Minutes,  p.  236.  f  Ibid.  p.  268.  J  Ibid.  p.  279. 


862  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ander  Miller,  Mr.  Israel  Reed,  Mr.  John  Woodhull,  and  Mr.  Na 
than  Ker,  a  committee  to  meet  such  committees  as  may  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Low  Dutch  Synod  now  sitting  in  New  York,  and  by 
the  Associate  Synod,  to  meet  in  that  city  next  week,  at  such  time 
and  place  as  may  be  agreed  upon  ;  to  confer  with  the  brethren  of 
said  Synods,  on  this  important  subject ;  and  to  concert  such  mea- 
sures with  them  for  the  accomplishment  of  these  great  ends  as  they 
shall  judge  expedient."* 

It  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  following  year,  that  the  com- 
mittees of  the  three  Synods  met  in  New  York  the  5th  of  October, 
1785,  and  organized  themselves  as  a  convention.  Their  first  mea- 
sure was  to  appoint  two  members  from  each  committee  to  digest 
the  several  subjects  to  be  laid  before  the  convention.  In  this  sub- 
committee the  first  inquiry  was,  what  the  formulas  of  doctrine  and 
worship  are  to  which  each  Synod  respectively  adheres.  The 
answer  given  by  the  Dutch  members  is  not  recorded ;  that  given 
by  the  members  from  the  Synod  of  New  York  was  quoted  on  a 
previous  page  ;f  that  of  the  members  of  the  Associate  Synod  is 
stated  to  have  been,  "  in  substance,  very  analogous  to  that  made 
by  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia."  It  was  then  re- 
solved, That  the  formulas  and  standards  mentioned  in  the  respec- 
tive representations  are  mutually  satisfactory,  and  lay  a  sufficient 
basis  for  the  fraternal  correspondence  and  concord  of  the  several 
Synods. 

"  The  second  inquiry  was,  whether  the  corresponding  Synods,  in 
order  to  lay  the  foundation  of  entire  confidence  in  each  other, 
were  willing  to  give  solemn  and  mutual  assurances  of  their  vigil- 
ance and  fidelity,  in  requiring  of  their  ecclesiastical  officers,  an 
explicit  and  unequivocal  assent  to  their  present  formulas  or  stand- 
ards of  discipline  and  faith;  and  will  take  such  measures  as  to 
them  respectively  shall  seem  most  reasonable  and  effectual  to  secure 
the  same  fidelity  and  orthodoxy  in  all  time  to  come.  The  answer 
was  unanimously  given  in  the  affirmative.  Resolved,  that  the 
nature  of  these  assurances  be  left  to  be  determined  by  the  conven- 
tion. 

*  Minutes,  p.  418.  f  See  above,  p.  307. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  363 

"  The  third  inquiry  was,  whether  they  will  agree  mutually  to 
watch  over  each  other's  purity  in  doctrine  and  discipline;  and 
whether  they  will  agree  mutually  to  receive  complaints  that  may 
be  made  by  either  of  the  others  against  particular  members  of  their 
respective  bodies,  who  may  be  supposed  to  be  departing  from  the 
faith,  or  from  the  exactness  of  their  church  discipline.  Agreed  in 
the  affirmative ;  but  that  the  mode  shall  be  referred  to  the  General 
Convention. 

"  The  fourth  inquiry  was,  whether  they  would  mutually  promise 
to  introduce  and  maintain  the  most  exact  discipline  that  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  country  and  spirit  of  the  people  will  bear. 
Resolved,  that  this  is  an  article  of  the  utmost  importance  ;  and 
resolved,  moreover,  that  it  be  recommended  to  the  convention  to 
consider  of  and  adopt  proper  means  for  aiding  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cipline by  discouraging  fugitives  from  it,  out  of  any  of  the  churches  ; 
and  especially  by  not  receiving  any  persons  to  church  membership 
without  sufficient  credentials  of  their  good  moral  character  and 
orderly  behaviour  from  the  church  to  which  they  now  immediately 
belong,  or  have  lately  belonged. 

"  The  fifth  inquiry  related  to  grievances  or  causes  of  complaint 
that  may  have  arisen  between  the  ministers  or  congregations  of 
the  respective  Synods.  Resolved,  that  they  ought  to  be  candidly 
heard,  and  the  most  speedy  and  effectual  measures  taken  to  redress 
them. 

"  The  sixth  and  last  inquiry,  or  proposition,  respected  some  mode 
of  establishing  a  visible  intercourse  and  permanent  correspondence 
between  the  several  Synods.  Resolved,  that  this  subject  be  re- 
ferred to  the  consideration  of  the  convention,  but  that  it  be  recom- 
mended to  the  convention  to  establish  an  annual  convention  of  the 
three  Synods  by  their  delegates,  which  may  consist  at  least  of  three 
ministers  and  three  elders  from  each  ;  and  that  the  general  objects 
of  this  convention  be  to  strengthen  each  other's  hands  in  the  great 
work  of  the  gospel  ministry ;  to  give  and  receive  mutual  informa- 
tion of  the  state  of  religion  within  their  respective  churches ;  to 
consider  and  adopt  the  most  prudent  means  to  prevent  or  remedy 
any  causes  of  dissension  that  may  happen  to  arise  between  our 


864  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

respective  congregations,  agreeably  to  the  instructions  that  may  be 
given  by  the  respective  Synods  ;  and  to  concert  measures  for  uniting 
our  efforts  to  defend  and  promote  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  and 
oppose  the  progress  of  infidelity  and  error  ;  and  to  adopt  plans  for 
effectually  assisting  *he  exercise  of  discipline  in  our  churches,  and 
encouraging  each  other  in  its  execution;  and  for  such  other  pur- 
poses as  the  convention  may  think  proper.  Resolved,  to  recom- 
mend that  the  first  meeting  of  the  above  convention  shall  be  held 
the#  second  Tuesday  of  October,  at  New  York,  and  afterwards  at 
such  time  and  place  as  shall  be  appointed  at  the  preceding  con- 
vention." 

When  this  sub-committee  of  six  made  the  above  report  to  the 
general  committee  or  convention,  it  was  approved  and  adopted ; 
and  the  several  points  referred  by  the  sub-committee  to  the  Con- 
vention, were  taken  up  and  acted  upon.  "  On  the  second  inquiry 
it  was  resolved,  that  the  manner  in  which  the  Synods  shall  give  a 
solemn  pledge  to  each  other  of  the  formula  of  their  faith  which 
they  have  openly  professed,  and  of  their  strict  attachment  to  the 
same,  shall  be  by  an  act  of  each  Synod,  wherein  an  accurate 
recital  of  such  formula  shall  be  made,  with  a  positive  declaration 
that  it  is  their  sincere  determination  before  God,  always  to  abide 
by  the  same,  for  which  purpose  they  honestly  pledge  themselves 
to  the  two  other  Synods ;  which  declaration  and  promise  shall  be 
signed  by  the  president  or  moderator  of  the  Synod,  and  at  the  first 
convention  to  be  formed  by  delegates  from  the  respective  Synods, 
be  read  and  entered  upon  the  records  of  the  convention,  and  copies 
of  all  the  declarations  be  transmitted  to  each  Synod  and  entered 
upon  their  respective  records ;  which  records  shall  remain  a  per- 
petual witness  against  either  party  that  shall  ever  deviate  there- 
from. And  also  that  each  Synod  shall  communicate,  by  their 
respective  delegates,  the  form  of  testimonials  or  credentials  given 
to  their  candidates,  and  of  those  given  to  ordained  ministers ; 
which  copies  shall  also  be  entered  on  the  records  of  the  respective 
Synods. 

"  Resolved,  on  the  third  inquiry,  that  Ave  will  mutually  watch 
over  exch  other's  purity  in  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  be  ready  to 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  365 

receive  complaints  against  any  of  our  ministers  upon  these  sub- 
jects ;  and  that  the  mode  in  which  such  complaints  shall  be  pre- 
ferred and  prosecuted  shall  be,  either  by  individuals,  who  shall  pro- 
secute in  their  own  names,  cum  periculo  ;  or  by  a  classis,  Presbytery, 
or  Synod  of  a  sister  church  :  in  which  case  it  shall  be  taken  up 
and  prosecuted  as  afama  clamosa,  by  the  classis,  Presbytery,  or 
Synod  to  which  the  offender  or  offenders  may  belong;  and  the 
whole  proceedings  shall  be  transmitted,  properly  authenticated  by 
the  moderator,  the  president,  the  scribe,  or  clerk,  to  the  informing 
body  for  their  satisfaction. 

"  On  the  fourth  inquiry,  resolved,  that  in  order  to  aid  the  exer- 
cise of  discipline,  and  discourage  fugitives  from  it,  every  classis, 
Presbytery,  or  Synod,  shall  officially  communicate  to  its  neighbour- 
ing Presbytery,  classis,  or  Synod,  the  name  or  names  of  every  min- 
ister or  candidate  subject  to  censure,  either  of  a  lesser  or  higher 
nature ;  after  which  such  Presbytery,  classis,  or  Synod,  shall  be 
held  to  view  and  treat  such  minister  or  candidate  as  lying  under 
ecclesiastical  censure  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  if  they  belonged 
to  their  own  body,  until  such  person  or  persons  shall  be  regularly 
acquitted,  or  restored  by  the  judicatory  who  had  inflicted  such 
censure. 

"  With  reference  to  the  fifth  inquiry,  relating  to  such  grievances 
as  may  hereafter  arise  in  congregations  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  different  corresponding  Synods,  it  is  determined  that  such  dif- 
ferences shall  be  referred  to  the  consideration  of  a  future  conven- 
tion. But  as  it  is  possible  that  some  contingencies  may  arise  which 
will  render  a  call  of  the  convention  before  the  stated  time  of  meet- 
ing necessary,  it  is  resolved,  that  a  power  be  lodged  in  the  modera- 
tor of  the  convention,  with  the  consent  of  one  member  at  least 
from  each  Synod,  by  circular  letters  to  call  an  extraordinary  con- 
vention, provided  that  such  call  be  not  more  than  once  in  one  year. 

"  The  convention  thought  proper  to  amend  the  resolution  of 
their  committee,  by  agreeing  to  a  biennial  instead  of  an  annual 
convention. 

"  On  motion  to  ascertain  and  limit  the  powers  of  the  convention 
jn  all  time  to  come,  resolved,  That  those  powers  shall  be  merely  of 


;-?66  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

counsel  and  advice,  and  that  it  shall  on  no  account  possess  judiciary 
or  executive  authority,  and  every  subject  that  shall  come  regularly 
before  the  convention,  shall,  after  being  properly  digested,  be  re- 
ferred to  the  respective  Synods,  together  with  the  opinion  of  the  con- 
vention, and  the  reasons  on  which  it  is  founded,  for  their  judicial 
Mid  ultimate  decision. 

"  Agreed,  that  the  convention  shall,  when  met,  set  apart  a  cer- 
tain portion  of  their  time  for  social  prayer  to  Almighty  God,  for 
his  blessing  on  their  counsels  and  the  churches  which  they  repre- 
sent ;  and  that  said  convention,  whenever  circumstances  appear  to 
them  to  require  public  and  general  humiliation  or  thanksgiving, 
shall  recommend  to  the  corresponding  Synods  to  set  apart  the  same 
day  to  be  observed  throughout  all  their  churches." 

When  this  report  was  laid  by  the  committee  before  the  Synod, 
that  body  "  approved  of  their  diligence  and  fidelity  in  the  matter, 
and  agreed  to  appoint  a  committee  to  meet  such  delegates  as  may 
be  appointed  by  the  other  Synods,  on  this  business,  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  October  next,"  the  day 
appointed  for  the  convention.  The  Synod  prepared  the  following 
instructions  for  their  delegation :  "  The  delegates,  on  the  part  of 
this  Synod,  are  to  inform  the  convention  that  this  body  is  about  to 
divide  itself  into  four  Synods,  subordinate  to  a  General  Assembly ; 
that  they  have  under  consideration  a  plan  of  church  government 
and  discipline,  which  it  is  hoped  when  completed,  will  be  sufficient 
to  answer  every  query  of  the  convention  upon  that  head ;  and  that 
the  mutual  assurances  mentioned  in  the  minutes  of  the  last  con- 
vention may,  as  far  as  they  respect  this  Synod,  be  made  more  pro- 
perly after  the  intended  system  is  finished  than  at  present.  They 
are  to  assure  the  convention  of  the  readiness  and  desire  of  this 
body,  in  the  mean  time,  to  unite  in  a  consistent  manner  their  in- 
fluence with  that  of  the  other  Synods,  in  order  to  promote  the 
spiritual  interests  and  best  good  of  the  whole.  And  the  delegates 
from  this  Synod  are  to  enter  into  a  friendly  conference  with  those 
2>f  the  other  Synods,  and  in  conjunction  with  them,  concert  such 
measures  as  shall  be  best  calculated  to  diffuse  harmony  and  brotherly 
love  through  the  several  churches,  and  promote  the  interest  of  the 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  307 

Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  to  make  report  of  the  whole  to  this 
Synod  at  their  next  meeting.  On  motion,  resolved,  that  the  Rev. 
Doctors  John  Witherspoon,  John  Rodgers,  Alexander  McWhorter, 
Mr.  Israel  Read,  Mr.  John  Woodhull,  Mr.  Nathan  Ker,  with  the 
moderator,  (Mr.  Alexander  Miller,)  be  appointed,  and  they  are 
hereby  appointed,  delegates  on  behalf  of  this  Synod  for  the  pur- 
poses above  mentioned." 

The  next  year  it  is  simply  recorded,  "  That  the  committee  ap- 
pointed to  meet  committees  from  the  Reformed  Dutch  Synod  and 
the  Associate  Synod,  made  report  and  delivered  the  minutes  of 
the  convention  of  the  committees  of  the  three  Synods,  which  met 
in  New  York  last  fall,  which  were  read."  As  the  convention  was 
to  be  biennial,  no  new  appointment  was  made  that  year ;  but,  in 
1788,  we  find  it  stated,  that  Dr.  Witherspoon,  Dr.  Smith,  Mr.  John 
Woodhull,  Mr.  Armstrong,  and  Mr.  Monteith,  were  appointed  dele- 
gates on  behalf  of  this  Synod  to  meet  in  convention  with  delegates 
from  the  Low  Dutch  Synod  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod, 
on  the  first  Thursday  of  next  October. 

The  preceding  account  throws  no  little  light  upon  the  character 
of  our  church  at  this  period.  It  is  evident,  not  only  from  the 
known  strictness  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  and  Associate  Synods, 
but  also  from  the  character  of  t-he  professions,  pledges,  and  guaran- 
ties, mutually  exacted,  that  thorough  orthodoxy  and  strict  fidelity 
to  the  standards  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  were  a  necessary  pre- 
liminary to  the  intercourse  thus  established  ;  and  that  the  preser- 
vation of  that  orthodoxy  was  one  great  object  which  the  union  was 
designed  to  answer.  It  must  excite  some  surprise  even  in  the 
stricter  sort  of  Presbyterians,  to  see  the  unanimity  and  readiness 
with  which  the  delegates  from  our  Synod  acceded  to  all  the  demands 
made  upon  them,  and  even  consented  to  place,  to  a  certain  extent, 
the  orthodoxy  of  their  own  members  under  the  surveillance  of  the 
other  Synods.  This  was  carrying  the  matter  too  far  to  last  long ; 
but  it  shows  a  state  of  feeling  in  our  church  which  has  long  since 
departed.  Could  an  intercourse,  such  as  was  here  provided  for, 
somewhat  modified,  have  been  preserved,  it  would  probably  have 
been  of  great  service  to  all  the  corresponding  bodies.     We  might 


368  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

have  gained  and  might  have  imparted  good,  and  the  character  ot 
the  three  Synods  been  modified  and  improved  by  their  reciprocal 
influence ;  and  thus  these  three  great  bodies  of  Presbyterians  been 
brought  into  a  more  cordial  fellowship  with  each  other,  and  each 
elevated  to  a  higher  point  of  ecclesiastical  and  Christian  excel- 
lence. 

In  1766,  an  overture  was  presented  to  the  Synod,  proposing  that 
they  should  "  endeavour  to  obtain  some  correspondence  between 
the  Synod  and  the  consociated  churches  of  Connecticut.  A  copy 
of  a  letter  from  the  Synod  to  them  was  also  read  and  approved ; 
and  the  Rev.  Messrs.  John  Ewing,  and  Patrick  Alison,  and  the 
moderator,  were  desired  to  present  that  letter,  and  confer  with  our 
brethren  on  this  affair.  And  in  case  it  shall  seem  meet,"  it  is 
added,  "  to  our  Reverend  brethren  to  attend  to  this  our  proposal, 
so  far  as  to  appoint  commissioners  from  their  body  to  meet  with 
commissioners  from  ours :  we  appoint  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alison,  and 
the  Rev.  Messrs.  Timothy  Jones,  William  Tennent,  John  Rodgers, 
Elisha  Kent,  John  Smith,  John  Blair,  and  Samuel  Buel,  to  meet 
with  them  at  such  time  and  place  as  the  reverend  brethren  of 
Connecticut  shall  agree."* 

In  consequence  of  this  overture,  a  convention  of  delegates  was 
held  at  Elizabethtown,  in  November,  1766,  and  a  plan  of  union  be- 
tween the  Congregational,  Consociated,  and  Presbyterian  Churches, 
was  drawn  up  and  reported  the  next  year  to  the  Synod,  and  when 
amended  was  finally  adopted  by  both  parties. f  This  plan  was  very 
simple,  and  provided, 

"  1.  That  a  general  convention  be  formed  of  the  Congregational, 
Consociated,  and  Presbyterian  Churches  in  North  America,  con- 
sisting of  delegates  from  each  of  their  respective  bodies,  to  meet 
annually,  or  as  often  as  may  be  thought  necessary,  and  that  the 
first  general  convention  be  held  at  New  Haven  the  day  after  their 
next  annual  commencement. 

"  2.  That  this  general  convention  shall  not  be  invested  with,  nor 
shall  it  at  anytime  hereafter  assume  any  power,  dominion,  jurisdic- 
tion, or  authority  over  the  churches  ov  pastors,  or  any  church  or 

*  Minutes,  p.  151.  t  Ibid.  pp.  170,  180. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  369 

pastor ;  nor  shall  any  counsel  or  advice  be  asked  or  given  in  this 
general  convention,  relative  to  any  internal  debates  subsisting,  or 
that  may  subsist  in  any  of  these  bodies  thus  united ;  and  it  is  par- 
ticularly agreed,  that  the  Congregational,  Consociated,  and  Pres- 
byterian Churches,  shall  subsist  entire  and  independent  of  each 
other,  notwithstanding  this  union ;  retaining  their  peculiar  usages 
and  forms  of  government ;  nor  shall  ever  any  attempts  be  made, 
nor  any  authority,  directly  or  indirectly  be  used  by  this  general 
convention  to  change  or  assimilate  the  same. 

"  3.  That  the  general  design  of  this  convention  be  to  gain  inform- 
ation of  this  united  cause  and  interest ;  to  collect  accounts  relating 
thereto ;  to  unite  our  endeavours  and  counsels  for  spreading  the 
gospel,  and  preserving  the  religious  liberties  of  our  churches ;  to 
diffuse  harmony,  and  to  keep  up  a  correspondence  throughout  this 
united  body,  and  with  our  friends  abroad  ;  to-  recommend,  cultivate, 
and  preserve  loyalty  towards  the  king's  majesty ;  and  also  address 
the  king  or  the  king's  ministers  with  assurances  of  the  unshaken 
loyalty  of  the  pastors  comprehended  in  this  union,  and  of  the 
churches  under  their  care ;  and  to  vindicate  them,  if  unjustly 
aspersed. 

"  4.  That  summary  accounts-  of  all  the  information  and  transac- 
tions in  this  general  convention  be,  from  time  to  time,  duly  trans- 
mitted to  all  the  Associations-,  Presbyteries,  or  any  other  bodies 
that  shall  accede  to  or  be  included  in  this  union."* 

It  was  agreed  that  letters  should  be  written  to  the  ministers  of 
the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  Churches  in  Massachusetts, 
New  Hampshire,  and  Rhode  Island,  and  to-  the  reverend  brethren 
of  the  Reformed  Dutch  churchr  inviting  them  to  send  delegates  to 
the  convention.  And  accordingly  the  following  year,  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
Parsons  and  McGregore  of  the  Presbytery  of  Boston  did  attend ; 
but  afterwards  the  convention  was  almost  exclusively  composed  of 
delegates  from  the  Synod  and  the  churches  of  Connecticut. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  wise  plan,  there  was  no  attempt 
to  amalgamate  two  different  denominations  ;  to  give  the  one  a  voice 
in  the  government  of  the  dther.     Every  thing   of  this  kind  was 

*  Minutes  of  the  Convention,  pp.  4,  5. 

vol.  ii. — 24 


370  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

carefully  provided  against.  It  was  an  union  only  in  convention, 
and  for  objects  in  which  the  two  churches  had  a  common  interest. 
This  convention  of  delegates  continued  to  be  regularly  held  every 
year  until  the  revolutionary  war.  The  great  and  almost  the  only 
subject  which  occupied  their  attention,  was  opposition  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  American  Episcopate.  In  1768,  a  letter  was  writ- 
ten on  this  subject  by  the  direction  of  the  convention  to  the  com- 
mittee in  London,  for  managing  the  civil  affairs  of  the  dissenters, 
setting  forth  their  reasons  for  believing  that  such  a  measure  was  in 
contemplation,  and  their  strong  objections  to  its  being  carried  into 
effect.  To  this  letter  an  answer  was  received,  in  which  the  com- 
mittee state,  that  they  were  fully  aware  of  the  many  civil  and  reli- 
gious inconveniences  which  would  attend  the  introduction  of  dioce- 
san bishops  into  America,  and  were  determined  to  do  all  they  could 
to  oppose  the  measure.  They  at  the  same  time  informed  the  con- 
vention that,  from  the  best  authority,  they  were  assured  the  English 
government  had,  at  that  time,  no  such  design.  The  correspondence 
thus  commenced  was  continued,  with  some  interruptions,  from  year 
to  year;  and  was  conducted  principally  through  Dr.  Alison  of 
Philadelphia,  Dr.  Rodgers  of  New  York,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whit- 
man of  Hartford.  With  the  same  general  object  in  view,  the  con- 
vention appointed  from  time  to  time  committees,  to  ascertain  and 
report  on  the  religious  laws  in  force  in  the  several  colonies ;  on  the 
acts  of  oppression  to  which  non-episcopalians  in  any  of  the  pro- 
vinces were  subject ;  and  on  the  proportion  which  the  different 
denominations  bore  to  each  other  in  different  parts  of  the  country. 
In  consequence  of  these  appointments,  several  valuable  reports 
were  presented  to  the  convention,  which  unhappily  have  not  been 
preserved.  In  1774,  it  is  stated  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Halsey  of  New 
Jersey,  "delivered  in  a  valuable  detail  of  the  first  settlement  of 
North  Carolina,  and  of  the  ecclesiastical  circumstances  of  the  pro- 
vince in  its  different  periods  to  the  present  time."  Mr.  Montgom- 
ery reported,  that  he  had  made  some  progress  in  collecting  mate- 
rials concerning  the  rise  and  progress  of  religious  liberty,  and  in 
ascertaining  the  proportion  of  dissenters  to  the  established  church 
in  Maryland ;  and  Mr.  Patrick  Alison  was  requested  to  fix  the  pro- 


IN     THE     UNITED     STAGES.  371 

portion  between  these  two  classes  on  the  western  shore  of  that 
province.  Dr.  Rodgers  stated  that  he  expected  to  be  ready  to 
report  on  New  York  to  the  next  convention.  In  1775,  a  full  and 
accurate  account  respecting  Connecticut,  was  received  from  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Goodrich ;  and  also  an  account  of  the  number  of  Epis- 
copalians and  non-episcopalians  in  that  colony ;  for  which  he  re- 
ceived the  thanks  of  the  convention.  The  troubles  of  the  times 
soon  put  a  stop  to  these  labours ;  and  the  convention  never  met 
after  that  year. 

It  does  not  lie  within  the  scope  of  the  present  work  to  enter 
fully,  either  into  the  history  or  the  merits  of  the  controversy  re- 
specting an  American  Episcopate.  It  will  be  proper,  however,  to 
say  enough  on  the  subject  to  enable  the  reader  to  form  a  judgment 
of  the  propriety  of  the  course  taken  by  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  so  decidedly  opposing  the  measure.  After  several  unsuccessful 
attempts  had  been  made  at  an  earlier  period,  to  induce  the  English 
government  to  send  one  or  more  bishops  to  America,  the  effort  was 
renewed  by  a  voluntary  convention  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  who  prepared  a  petition  on  the  subject  to 
be  forwarded  to  Europe,  and  requested  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bradbury 
Chandler  of  Elizabethtown,  to  write  and  publish  an  appeal  to  the 
public  in  behalf  of  the  measure.  This  appeal  was  published  in 
1767,  and  presents  the  claims  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  this 
country  to  the  enjoyment  of  a  complete  organization  with  great 
force  and  ingenuity.  The  appeal  was  answered  by  Dr.  Charles 
Chauncey  of  Boston  ;  and  the  matter  soon  became  a  subject  of 
general  controversy  throughout  the  country ;  even  the  weekly 
papers  were  made  the  vehicles  of  vehement  arguments  on  both 
sides.* 

According  to  Dr.  Chandler  it  was  proposed,  "  That  the  bishops 
to  be  sent  to  America  shall  have  no  authority  but  purely  of  a  spi- 
ritual and  ecclesiastical  nature,  such  as  is  derived  altogether  from 

*  Many  of  these  pieces  are  to  be  found  in  "  A  Collection  of  Tracts  from 
the  late  Newspapers,  containing  the  American  Whig,  a  Whip  for  the  Ame- 
rican Whig,  &c. ;  being  controversial  articles  relating  to  protestant  bishops 
in  the  American  colonies :  New  York,  1768,  2  vols.,"  in  the  Philadelphia 
Library. 


^72  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

the  church  and  not  from  the  state.  That  this  authority  shall  ope- 
rate only  upon  the  clergy  of  the  church,  and  not  upon  che  laity  or 
upon  dissenters  of  any  denomination.  That  the  bishops  shall  not 
interfere  with  the  property  or  privileges,  whether  civil  or  religious, 
of  churchmen  or  dissenters.  That  in  particular,  they  shall  have 
no  concern  with  the  probate  of  wills,  letters  of  guardianship  and 
administration,  or  marriage  licenses,  nor  be  judges  of  any  cases 
relating  thereto.  But  that  they  shah  only  exercise  the  original 
powers  of  their  office,  i.  e.  ordain  and  govern  the  clergy,  and  ad- 
minister confirmation  to  those  who  shall  desire  it."*  Against  a 
plan  so  reasonable  as  this  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  objection  could 
be  made.  As  diocesan  bishops  are  an  essential  part  of  an  Episco- 
pal church,  necessary  to  ordain,  confirm,  and  exercise  discipline,  it 
would  seem  to  be  a  hard  case  that  the  numerous  churches  already 
formed  in  this  country,  should  be  deprived  of  this  part  of  their 
system :  that  the  clergy  should  be  without  supervision  ;  and  that 
candidates  for  orders  should  be  obliged  to  make  a  long  and  expen- 
sive voyage  to  obtain  ordination.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  strenu- 
ous and  united  opposition  was  made  to  the  introduction  of  Ameri- 
can bishops,  needs  explanation.  As  far  as  the  Presbyterian  church 
is  concerned,  we  should  be  sorry  that  it  should  lie  under  the  impu- 
tation of  having  resisted  the  reasonable  wishes  of  another  denomi- 
nation to  the  enjoyment  of  their  own  ecclesiastical  system. 

It  should  be  stated  then,  that  there  would  have  been  no  opposi- 
tion to  the  plan  as  above  presented,  had  there  been  any  reasonable 
prospect  of  its  being  adhered  to.  Against  bishops  who  should 
derive  their  authority  "  altogether  from  the  church  and  not  from 
the  state,"  no  voice  was  raised.  The  convention  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  the  churches  of  Connecticut,  say: 
"  We  would  by  no  means  have  it  understood  as  if  we  would  en- 
deavour to  prevent  an  American  bishop,  or  archbishop,  or  patri- 
arch, or  whatever  else  they  might  see  fit  to  send,  provided  other 
denominations  could  be  safe  from  their  severity  and  encroachments,  "f 

*  Appeal  to  the  Public,  &c.  p.  79. 

f  Letter  to  the  committee  in  London,  dated  September,  1771.  Minutes  of 
the  Convention,  p.  39. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  373 

And  Dr.  Chauncey,  in  his  reply  to  the  Appeal,  says :  "  We  desire 
no  other  liberty  than  to  be  left  unrestrained  in  the  exercise  of  our 
religious  principles,  in  so  far  as  we  are  good  members  of  society. 
And  we  are  perfectly  willing  that  Episcopalians  should  enjoy  this 
liberty  to  the  full.  If  they  think  bishops  in  their  appropriated 
sense,  were  constituted  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  we  object  not  a 
word  to  their  having  as  many  of  them  as  they  please,  if  they  will 
be  content  to  have  them  with  authority  altogether  derived  from 
Christ.  But  they  both  claim  and  desire  a  great  deal  more.  They 
want  to  be  distinguished  by  having  bishops  on  the  footing  of  a  state 
establishment."*  And  again,  "  Dr.  Chandler  quite  mistakes  the 
true  ground  of  our  dissatisfaction.  It  is  not  simply  the  exercise 
of  any  of  their  religious  principles  that  would  give  us  any  uneasi- 
ness ;  nor  yet  the  exercise  of  them  under  as  many  purely  scriptu- 
ral bishops  as  they  could  wish  to  have ;  but  their  having  bishops 
under  a  state  establishment,  which  would  put  them  upon  a  different 
footing  from  the  other  denominations,  and,  without  all  doubt,  sooner 
or  later  expose  them  to  many  difficulties  and  grievous  hardships. "f 
The  same  sentiment  is  expressed  by  Dr.  Mayhew,  in  his  Observa- 
tions on  the  charter  and  conduct  of  the  Society  for  the  propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts ;  and  also  by  the  American 
Whig. 

The  opposition,  therefore,  was  not  to  bishops  with  purely  spiritual 
authority,  but  to  bishops  sent  by  the  state  with  powers  ascertained 
and  determined  by  act  of  parliament.  The  mere  fact  that  this 
opposition  was  so  general,  and  that  it  was  as  strong,  though  not  as 
universal,  among  Episcopalians  as  among  the  members  of  other 
denominations,  is  a  proof  that  it  did  not  owe  its  origin  to  any  un- 
generous bigotry.  If  the  Massachusetts  legislature  opposed  it,  so 
did  the  house  of  burgesses  in  Virginia.  The  former  body,  in  a 
letter  to  their  agent  in  London,  dated  January  12,1768,  say: 
"  The  establishment  of  a  Protestant  Episcopate  in  America,  is  also 
very  zealously  contended  for  ;  and  it  is  very  alarming  to  a  people 
whose  fathers,  from  the  hardships  which  they  suffered  under  such 
an  establishment,  were  obliged  to  fly  from  their  native  country  into 
*  Appeal  to  the  Public,  answered,  p.  180.  f  Ibid.  p.  189. 


374  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

a  wilderness,  in  order  peaceably  to  enjoy  their  privileges,  civil  and 
religious.  Their  being  threatened  with  the  loss  of  both  at  once 
must  throw  them  into  a  very  disagreeable  situation.  We  hope  in 
God  such  an  establishment  will  never  take  place  in  America,  and 
we  desire  you  would  strenuously  oppose  it."*  In  Virginia,  when 
a  convention  was  called  to  consider  the  propriety  of  petitioning  for 
a  bishop,  only  twelve  out  of  a  hundred  ministers  in  the  province 
attended,  and  of  those  twelve  four  protested  against  the  decision 
to  forward  a  petition.  And  soon  after  the  house  of  burgesses,  by 
an  unanimous  vote,  thanked  the  protestors  "  for  the  wise  and  well- 
timed  opposition  they  had  made  to  the  pernicious  project  of  a  few 
mistaken  clergymen  for  introducing  an  American  bishop."!  ^ 
any  thing  more  is  necessary  to  show  the  character  of  this  opposi- 
tion, it  may  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  as  soon  as  this  country  was 
separated  from  England,  and  thus  all  fear  of  the  civil  power  of 
the  bishops  removed,  all  objection  to  their  introduction  was  with- 
drawn. 

This  apprehension  of  danger  to  the  religious  liberty  of  the  coun- 
try was  not  a  feverish  dread  of  imaginary  evils.  It  was  even 
better  founded  than  the  apprehension  of  danger  to  our  civil  liber- 
ties from  the  claim  of  the  British  Parliament  to  a  right  to  tax  the 
country.  As  the  Episcopal  Church  was  established  in  England, 
and  as  those  who  had  the  control  of  the  government  were  members 
of  that  church,  the  Episcopalians  in  America  were  naturally  led 
to  be  constantly  looking  for  state  patronage  and  legal  support. 
They  claimed  it  as  a  right,  that  the  support  and  extension  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  should  be  made  a  national  con- 
cern. Even  Dr.  Chandler,  although  his  work  was  written  to  dis- 
arm prejudice  and  allay  apprehensions,  could  not  avoid  letting  this 
be  distinctly  seen.  "  It  has  been  the  practice  of  all  Christian 
nations,"  he  tells  us,  "  to  provide  for  and  maintain  the  national 
religion,  and  to  render  it  as  respectable  as  possible  in  the  most  dis- 
tant colonies;"  and,  "as  some  religion  has  ever  been  thought,  by 

*  See  American  Whig,  vol.  i.  p.  67. 

f  Dr.  Hawks'  Contributions  to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  United 
States,  vol.  i.  pp.  127-130. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  375 

the  wisest  legislators,  to  be  necessary  for  the  security  of  civil 
government,  and  accordingly  has  always  been  interwoven  into  the 
constitution  of  it,  so  in  every  nation  that  religion  which  is  thus  dis- 
tinguished, must  be  looked  upon  as,  in  the  opinion  of  the  legisla- 
ture, the  best  fitted  for  this  great  purpose.  Wherever,  therefore, 
the  national  religion  is  not  made  in  some  degree  a  national  con- 
cern, it  will  commonly  be  considered  as  an  evidence  that  those  who 
have  the  direction  of  the  national  affairs  do  not  esteem  their  reli- 
gion ;  or  that  they  are  negligent  of  the  duty  they  owe  to  God  and  the 
public,  as  guardians  of  its  happiness."  He  then  proceeds  to  give 
the  reasons  why  "  the  Church  of  England  in  America  appears  not 
hitherto  to  have  been  made  a  national  concern;"  reasons  which,  he 
says,  may  account  for,  although  not  altogether  excuse  this  neglect.* 
It  was  this  very  thing,  which  Dr.  Chandler  considered  so  much  a 
matter  of  course,  that  other  denominations  deprecated  and  dreaded. 
They  denied  the  right  of  the  British  government  thus  to  distin- 
guish the  Episcopal  Church,  especially  in  the  northern  provinces, 
where  its  members,  even  at  this  period,  hardly  constituted  the 
thirtieth  part  of  the  population.  They  denied  the  fairness  of  its 
being  made  a  national  concern  to  the  detriment  and  oppression  of 
other  denominations.  The  whole  history  of  the  country  showed 
that  the  authorities  in  England  acted  constantly  on  the  plan  of 
giving  the  Church  of  England,  in  this  country,  all  the  ascendency 
that  could  with  safety  be  secured  for  it.  In  those  colonies  where 
the  thing  was  possible,  that  church  was  established  by  law ;  in 
others,  the  public  were  taxed  for  its  support,  or  national  property 
assigned  for  its  maintenance. 

In  South  Carolina,  according  to  Dr.  Ramsay,  the  Presbyterians 
were  among  the  first  settlers  of  the  country ;  and,  in  connection 
with  the  Independents,  they  organized  a  church  in  1690,  and  in  the 
early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  Presbytery  was  formed 
agreeably  to  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land.f     The  Episcopalians  had  no  minister  until  1701  ;|  and,  in 

*  Appeal,  pp.  44-47.  f  History  of  South  Carolina,  vol.  ii.  p.  25. 

X  Humphrey's  History  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
Foreign  Parts,  p.  25. 


376  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

1710,  formed  less  than  a  half  of  the  population  ;*  though  even  then 
several  of  the  French  Presbyterian  Churches  had  gone  over  to 
them.  Yet  in  1696,  provision  was  made  by  law  for  an  Episcopal 
clergyman,  in  Charleston,  who  was  to  be  allowed  one  hundred  and 
fifty  pounds  sterling  a  year,  together  with  a  house,  glebe,  and  two 
servants.  As  nothing  was  yet  said  of  an  establishment,  this  law 
excited  little  dissatisfaction.  Soon  after,  however,  the  Church  of 
England  was  fully  established ;  a  salary  of  one  hundred  pounds 
out  of  the  public  treasury  was  allowed  to  each  of  its  ministers,  and 
all  denominations  were  taxed  for  building  its  churches. f  In  1703, 
a  law  was  passed  which  "  required  every  man  who  should  be  chosen 
a  member  of  the  Assembly  to  take  the  oaths  and  subscribe  the 
declaration  appointed,  to  conform  to  the  religion  and  worship  of 
the  Church  of  England ;  and  to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper  accord- 
ing to  the  rites  and  usages  of  that  church." J  The  proprietors  in- 
serted a  clause  into  the  constitution  of  the  colony  to  the  following 
effect:  "As  the  country  cornea  to  be  sufficiently  planted,  it  shall 
belong  to  the  Parliament  to  take  care  for  the  building  of  churches, 
and  the  public  maintenance  of  divines  to  be  employed  in  the  exer- 
cise of  religion  according  to  the  Church  of  England,  which  being 
the  only  true  and  orthodox,  and  the  national  church  of  all  the 
king's  dominions,  is  so  also  of  Carolina ;  and,  therefore,  it  alone 
shall  be  allowed  to  receive  public  maintenance  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment.'^ The  result,  therefore,  in  Carolina,  of  making  the  Church 
of  England  a  national  concern,  was,  that  other  denominations  were 
not  only  taxed  for  its  support,  but  were  also  debarred  from  a  seat 
in  the  Legislature. 

As  Virginia  was  more  of  an  Episcopal  colony  from  the  beginning, 
there  was  less  ground  of  complaint  for  the  mere  establishment  of 
the  English  Church.  The  severity  of  her  ecclesiastical  laws,  how- 
ever, admits  of  no  justification.  In  1618,  it  was  enacted,  "  that 
every  person  should  go  to  church  on  Sundays  and  holydays,  or  lie 
neck  and  heels  that  night,  and  be  a  slave  to  the  colony  the  follow 

*  Letter  from  South  Carolina,  dated  1710,  quoted  above,  chap.  ii.  p.  85. 

t  Hewitt's  History  of  Carolina,  vol.  i.  p.  140. 

X  Hewitt,  vol.  i.  p.  166.  g  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  46,  47. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  377 

ing  week.  For  a  second  offence,  he  should  be  a  slave  for  a  month  : 
and,  for  a  third,  a  year  and  a  day."*  In  1624,  a  law  requiring 
strict  conformity,  as  near  as  might  be,  in  substance  and  circum- 
stance, to  the  canons  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  passed.  And 
in  1642,  it  was  enacted  that  no  minister  should  officiate  within  the 
province  who  could  not  produce  a  certificate  of  his  ordination  by 
some  English  bishop,  and  promise  to  conform  to  the  orders  and 
constitution  of  the  Church  of  England ;  and  the  governor  and 
council  were  authorized  to  compel  any  one  who  transgressed  this 
law  to  depart  the  country. f  Severe  laws  also  were  passed  against 
the  Quakers,  and  subsequently  against  the  Baptists.  Even  the 
rights  guarantied  by  the  Virginia  act  of  toleration,  were  repeatedly 
violated  in  the  case  of  Presbyterians.  Before  the  revolutionary 
war  the  Dissenters  had  increased  so  much,  that  it  is  said  the  Epis- 
copalians did  not  constitute  more  than  one-third  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  province.J  Yet  even  in  those  parishes  in  which  there  were 
very  few  members  of  the  Established  Church,  the  Dissenters  were 
obliged  to  purchase  glebes,  build  churches,  and  make  provision  for 
the  support  of  the  clergy.  This  was  felt  to  be  a  great  grievance 
in  a  new  country,  and  among  a  poor  people.  It  is  prominently 
presented  as  an  unreasonable  burden  in  the  memorial  presented  to 
the  Legislature  by  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover,  in  1776. §    The  con- 

*  Stith's  History,  p.  148.  f  Laws  of  Virginia,  p.  3. 

X  This  statement  is  given  by  Dr.  Hawks,  p.  140,  who  quotes  as  authorities, 
4  Burk.  p.  180  ;  1  Jefferson's  Works,  p.  31.  The  Doctor,  however,  thinks  there 
are  circumstances  which  would  seem  to  render  the  statement  doubtful.  All 
such  estimates,  in  the  absence  of  any  regular  census,  must  be  more  or  less 
uncertain.  There  is  nothing,  however,  in  the  above  account  that  needs  excite 
surprise.  The  number  of  Episcopalians  had  long  ceased  to  be  increased  by 
new  accessions  from  the  mother  country.  The  great  influx  of  settlers  was 
from  Pennsylvania,  and  consisted  of  German  and  Scotch-Irish.  The  Estab- 
lished Church  had  suffered  a  great  diminution  of  numbers  by  the  rise  of  the 
Presbyterians,  even  in  the  eastern  counties ;  and  subsequently,  a  still  greater 
loss  by  the  rise  of  the  Baptists,  who  at  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  were  a 
large  and  influential  party.  Other  denominations,  therefore,  had  been  for 
years  increasing,  while  the  Episcopalians  were  decreasing. 

\  Illustration  of  the  Character  and  Conduct  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  \n 
Virginia.     By  John  H.  Rice.    Richmond,  1816.  , 


378  PRESBYTERIAN     CHTjRCH 

duct  of  some  of  the  New  England  provinces  in  reference  to  the 
Episcopal  Dissenters  within  their  bounds,  was  very  different.  They 
were  relieved  from  all  payments  in  support  of  the  "  standing 
churches,"  when  they  were  an  inconsiderable  minority  of  the  popu- 
lation. 

The  early  ecclesiastical  history  of  Maryland  is  very  much  of  a 
riddle.  From  all  that  appears,  however,  it  may  be  fairly  referred 
to  as  affording  another  example  of  the  church  of  the  minority  being, 
by  the  force  of  the  authorities  in  England,  made  the  established 
religion  of  the  province.  Maryland,  though  originally  settled  by 
Roman  Catholics,  was  soon  furnished  with  a  population  of  a  very 
mixed  religious  character.  When  the  proprietary  government  was 
overthrown,  in  1651,  the  first  act  of  the  legislature  was  to  pass  an 
intolerant  law  denying  even  protection  to  the  Catholics,  and  grant- 
ing liberty  of  conscience  and  worship  to  such  as  professed  faith  in 
God  by  Jesus  Christ,  provided  this  liberty  was  not  extended  to 
popery  and  prelacy.*  At  this  period,  therefore,  the  Episcopalians 
must  have  been  in  the  minority.  Five  and  twenty  years  later  they 
were  still  very  inconsiderable  in  numbers.  Under  the  date  1676, 
Dr.  Hawks  remarks :  "  Hitherto  our  narrative  has  been  silent  with 
respect  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  Maryland.  The 
reason  is  obvious,  for  though  there  were  members  of  that  church 
living  within  the  province,  yet  they  were  not  numerous,  "f  Not- 
withstanding their  fewness,  they  complained  that  no  provision  was 
made  by  law  for  the  support  of  their  clergy.  These  complaints 
were  referred  by  the  bishop  of  London  to  the  committee  of  planta- 
tions, who  called  Lord  Baltimore,  (who  had  before  this  been  restored 
to  his  authority,)  to  account  on  this  subject.  His  lordship  answered 
that  all  denominations  were  upon  a  level  in  Maryland,  and  that  it 
would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  get  the  Assembly  to  make  a 
law,  obliging  any  denomination  of  Christians  to  support  other  min- 
isters than  their  own.];  "  This  answer,"  says  Dr.  Hawks,  "  did  not 
seem  to  satisfy  the  committee,  for  they  declared  that,  in  their  opin- 
ion, there  should  be  some  maintenance  for  the  clergy  of  the  church, 
and  that  his  lordship  should  propose  means  for  the  support  of  a  com- 
*  Hawks,  vol.  ii.  p.  42.  f  Ibid.  p.  47.  \  Ibid.  p.  51. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  379 

petent  number."  The  revolution  of  1688,  which  placed  William 
III.  upon  the  throne  of  England,  led  to  a  similar  revolution  in 
Maryland.  In  1691,  Maryland  was  made  a  royal  government ;  and, 
in  1692,  the  Church  of  England  was  established  ;  the  country  was 
divided  into  thirty  parishes,  and  provision  made  for  building 
churches,  and  for  the  support  of  the  clergy.  It  can  hardly  be  sup- 
posed that  such  a  sudden  revolution  had  occurred  in  the  religious 
sentiments  of  the  people,  that  the  Episcopalians,  who  were  so  few 
in  1676,  had  become  the  majority  of  the  population  in  1692.  In 
1694,  the  new  governor  "  found  but  three  clergymen  on  his  arrival ; 
and  they,"  it  is  added,  "  had  been  able  to  remain,  only  because  they 
were  possessed  of  property  to  support  them  ;  these  three  had  to 
contend  with  double  their  number  of  priests  belonging  to  the  church 
of  Rome.  '  There  was  also  a  sort  of  wandering  pretenders  to 
preaching,  that  came  from  New  England  and  other  places,  which 
deluded  not  only  the  protestant  dissenters  from  our  church,  but 
many  churchmen  themselves,  by  their  extemporary  prayers  and 
preachments,  for  which  they  were  admired  by  the  people,  and  got 
money  of  them.'  "*  There  can  be  little  doubt,  therefore,  that  the 
Episcopalians,  compared  to  the  Catholics  and  protestant  dissenters, 
were  a  minority  of  the  people.  Their  connection,  however,  with 
the  government  at  home  gave  them  an  ascendency,  and  the  whole 
province  was  taxed  for  the  support  of  their  worship. 

However  burdensome  upon  dissenters  the  laws  for  the  support 
of  the  church  of  England  may  have  been,  there  was  less  ground 
of  complaint  in  reference  to  those  colonies  where  that  church  was 
established  by  colonial  legislation,  on  the  part  of  those  dissenters 
who  entered  them  after  those  laws  were  enacted.  They  knew  what 
they  had  to  expect,  and  acted  with  their  eyes  open.  We  must  look 
to  those  provinces  where  the  Episcopal  church  was  not  established, 
and  notice  the  claims  of  its  members,  and  the  conduct  of  the  au- 
thorities of  England  in  relation  to  it,  if  we  would  learn  their  true 
spirit  and  purpose  at  this  period.  In  the  provinces  north  of  Mary- 
land, the  Episcopalians,  even  so  late  as  1767,  '8,  when  they  had 
greatly  increased,  principally  by  the  accession  of  proselytes,  did 
*  Hawks,  vol.  ii.  p.  77. 


380  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

not  constitute  the  thirtieth  of  the  population.*  In  New  York 
they  were  about  the  twentieth;  or,  towards  the  beginning  of  the 
century,  the  twenty-fifth.  Notwithstanding  this  great  inferiority 
in  numbers,  and  notwithstanding  these  provinces  were  settled  by 

*  In  1708,  there  were  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  three  Episcopal 
churches  which  supported  themselves,  and  nineteen  missionaries  supported 
1  y  the  society  in  England.  In  New  York  there  were  three  churches  self- 
supported,  and  eleven  missionaries ;  in  New  England  three  churches  which 
sustained  themselves,  and  thirty  missionaries.  Chauncey's  answer  to  Chand- 
ler's Appeal,  p.  113.  Dr.  Chauncey  concedes  that,  taking  in  vacant  congre- 
gations and  scattered  families,  the  number  of  Episcopalians  in  the  northern 
provinces  might  be  estimated  at  equal  to  one  hundred  and  four  congregations. 
lie  allows  fifty  families  to  each  congregation,  which  he  says  Episcopalians 
would  admit  to  be  a  large  allowance,  and  five  members  to  a  family,  and  thus 
brings  out  twenty-sis  thousand  as  his  estimate  of  Episcopalians  in  those  pro- 
vinces, which  he  adds  "  is  a  mere  handful  compared  with  more  than  a  million 
persons,  which,  without  dispute,  live  within  those  bounds." 

As  to  the  increase  of  the  church  principally  by  proselytes,  the  fact  is  fre- 
quently mentioned  by  Humphrey  in  his  History  of  the  Society  for  the  pro- 
pagation of  the  Gospel;  and  Dr.  Chandler,  in  his  Appeal  Defended,  published 
in  1768,  says,  "As  to  Connecticut,  of  which  I  can  judge  from  my  own  obser- 
vation, the  church  has  increased  there  most  amazingly  for  twenty  or  thirty 
years  past.  I  cannot  at  present  recollect  an  example,  in  any  age  or  country, 
wherein  so  great  a  proportion  of  proselytes  has  been  made  to  any  religion  in 
bo  short  a  time,  as  has  been  made  to  the  church  of  England  in  the  western 
division  of  that  populous  colony  ;  unless  where  the  power  of  miracles  or  the 
arm  of  the  magistrate  was  exerted  to  produce  that  effect."  p.  217.  This 
agrees  with  what  Edwards  says  in  a  letter  written  in  1750,  viz.  that  the  Epis- 
copal church  had  trebled  itself  in  New  England  within  seven  years. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  information  from  an  unexceptionable  source,  as  to 
the  state  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country,  about  the  beginning  of  the 
last  century,  contained  in  the  memorials  of  Governor  Dudley,  Colonel  Morris, 
and  Colonel  Heatheote,  presented  to  the  Society  for  the  propagation  of  the 
Gospel,  and  quoted  by  Humphrey,  in  his  history  of  that  society.  "  In  South 
Carolina  there  were  computed  seven  thousand  souls,  besides  negroes  and 
Indians,  living  without  any  minister  of  the  church  of  England,  and  but  few 
dissenting  teachers  of  any  kind  ;  above  half  living  regardless  of  any  religion. 
In  North  Carolina  above  five  thousand  souls  without  any  minister,  ;rny  reli- 
gious ministrations  used,  no  public  worship  celebrated,  neither  the  children 
baptized,  nor  the  dead  buried  in  any  Christian  form.  Virginia  contained 
about  forty  thousand  souls  divided  into  forty  parishes,  but  wanting  near  half 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  381 

other  denominations,  and  with  the  exception  of  New  York,  were 
either  charter  or  proprietary  governments,  yet  the  conduct  of 
the  royal  governors,  the  demands  of  the  Episcopal  clergy,  and  the 
action  of  the  authorities  in  England,  all  showed  a  purpose  to  gain 
and  secure,  as  far  and  as  fast  as  possible,  an  ascendency  for  the 
church  of  England,  and  furnished  abundant  reason  for  the  anxious 
apprehension  of  the  people  for  their  religious  liberty. 

The  fundamental  assumption  on  which  the  conduct  of  the  parties 
above  mentioned  rested,  was  that  the  Episcopal  church  was  the  na- 
tional established  church  in  all  the  king's  dominions,  Scotland  only, 
and  not  the  colonies,  excepted :  that  other  denominations  were 
merely  tolerated,  and  consequently  were  entitled  to  nothing  more 
than  the  act  of  toleration  allowed  them  ;  whereas  the  church  of 

the  number  of  clergymen  requisite.  Maryland  contained  about  twenty-five 
thousand,  divided  into  twenty-six  parishes,  but  wanting  also  about  half  the 
number  of  ministers  requisite.  In  Pennsylvania  there  are  about  twenty 
thousand  souls,  of  whom  about  seven  hundred  frequent  the  church,  and  there 
are  not  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  communicants.  The  two  Jerseys 
contain  about  fifteen  thousand,  of  whom  not  above  six  hundred  frequent  the 
church,  nor  have  they  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  communicants.  In 
New  York  government  we  have  thirty  thousand  souls  at  least,  of  whom 
about  twelve  hundred  frequent  the  church,  and  we  have  about  four  hundred 
and  fifty  communicants.  In  Connecticut  colony  in  New  England,  there  are 
about  thirty  thousand  souls,  of  whom,  when  they  have  a  minister  among 
them,  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  frequent  the  church,  and  there  are  thirty- 
five  communicants.  In  Rhode  Island  and  Narragansett,  which  is  one  govern- 
ment, there  are  about  ten  thousand  souls,  of  which,  about  one  hundred  and 
fifty  frequent  the  church,  and  there  are  thirty  communicants.  In  Boston 
and  Piscataway  government,  there  are  about  eighty  thousand  souls,  of  whom 
about  six  hundred  frequent  the  church,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty  the 
sacrament.  In  Newfoundland  there  are  five  hundred  families  constantly 
living  in  the  place,  and  many  thousands  of  occasional  inhabitants,  and  no  sort 
of  public  Christian  worship  used.  This  is  the  true  though  melancholy  state 
of  our  church  in  North  America ;  and  whosoever  sends  any  other  accounts 
more  in  her  favour,  are  certainly  under  mistakes  ;  nor  can  I  take  them,  (if 
they  do  it  knowingly,)  to  be  friends  to  the  church ;  for  if  the  distemper  be 
not  rightly  known  and  understood,  proper  remedies  can  never  be  applied:" 
pp.  41-43.  According  to  this  estimate  there  were  one  hundred  and  eighty-five 
thousand  inhabitants  in  the  northern  provinces,  of  whom  three  thousand  foui 
hundred,  or  less  than  one  in  fifty-four,  were  Episcopalians. 


382  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

England  was  entitled  to  a  legal  provision,  to  national  support,  and 
the  exclusive  favour  and  patronage  of  the  government.  This 
ground  was  taken  more  or  less  openly,  on  different  occasions  and 
by  different  persons,  according  to  their  disposition  or  discretion ; 
and  it  was  the  only  ground  on  which  the  language  of  the  most 
cautious  could  be  either  justified  or  explained.  At  times  this  posi- 
tion was  assumed  with  perfect  plainness.  A  writer  who  styles  him- 
self a  member  of  the  Society  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
foreign  parts,  undertakes  to  demonstrate  first,  that  the  churches  in 
New  England  were  not,  and  secondly,  that  the  Episcopal  church 
was,  there  established.  With  regard  to  this  second  point  he  says, 
"  Though  it  is  undeniably  manifest  that  the  church  of  England  is 
established  by  the  act  of  union,  (between  England  and  Scotland,) 
yet  it  may  not  be  so  clear  that  this  establishment  actually  took 
place  before  that  time."  To  show,  however,  that  it  took  place 
from  the  very  settlement  of  the  country,  he  quotes  another  Episco- 
pal writer  who  says,  "  The  Christian  religion,  as  by  its  evidence 
and  intrinsic  excellence,  it  recommended  itself  to  the  English  gov- 
ernment, so  it  became  by  law  the  religion  of  the  English  nation ; 
and  the  church  of  England  likewise  became  by  law  their  national 
church ;  and  when  any  part  of  the  English  nation  spread  abroad 
into  colonies,  as  they  continued  part  of  the  nation,  the  law  obliged 
them  equally  to  the  church  of  England  and  the  Christian  religion. 
And  the  statutes  for  the  establishment  of  the  service,  ordination,  and 
articles  of  this  church,  made  and  confirmed  before  and  at  the  union 
of  the  two  kingdoms,  settle  and  establish  it  alike  in  the  dominions 
of  England,  and  in  the  realm  itself."  This  writer  then  quotes 
various  acts  of  parliament  made  in  the  reigns  of  Edward  VI., 
Elizabeth,  and  Charles  II.,  in  which  repeated  use  is  made  of  the 
phrase  "his  majesty's  dominions,"  as  fixing  the  limits  of  the  es- 
tablished church.*  The  great  reliance,  however,  of  these  writers 
was  upon  the  act  of  union.  In  the  fifth  year  of  Queen  Anne,  "  It 
was  enacted,  that  all  acts  of  parliament  then  in  force,  for  the  es- 

*  A  Candid  Examination  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  observations  on  the  charter  and 
conduct  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation,  &c,  by  a  member  of  the  society 
Boston,  1763,  p.  34,  vol.  417,  cf  Dr.  Sprague's  Collection. 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  383 

tablishment  and  preservation  of  the  church  of  England,  and  the 
doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government  thereof,  should  re- 
main and  be  in  full  force  for  ever ;  and  that  every  king  and  queen 
succeeding  to  the  royal  government  of  the  kingdom  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, at  his  or  her  coronation,  should  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  to 
maintain  and  preserve  inviolably,  the  said  settlement  of  the  church 
of  England,  a*nd  the  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government 
thereof,  as  by  law  established  within  the  kingdoms  of  England  and 
Ireland,  the  dominion  of  Wales,  and  the  town  of  Berwick  on 
Tweed,  and  the  territories  thereunto  belonging."*  As  the  North 
American  colonies  were  territories  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of 
Great  Britain,  it  was  confidently  inferred  that  the  church  of  Eng- 
land was  established  here  by  this  act,  if  never  before. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Wetmore  of  Connecticut,  took  the  same  ground, 
with  equal  decision  and  greater  insolence.  "  Men,"  he  says,  "not 
only  consistently  with  their  duty  may,  but  to  discharge  their  duty, 
must  be  of  the  communion  of  the  church  of  England,  if  they  are 
members  of  the  nation  of  England. "f  In  reference  to  the  charge 
of  schism,  which  had  been  brought  against  the  Episcopal  proselytes 
in  Connecticut,  he  says,  "  If  the  congregations,  the  forsaking  of 
which  is  called  schism,  be  themselves  founded  in  schism  and  un- 
justifiable separation  from  the  communion  of  the  church  of  England  , 
or  in  their  present  constitution  must  necessarily  be  esteemed  abet- 
tors and  approvers  of  schism,  disorders,  usurpation,  contempt  of 
the  chief  authority  Christ  has  left  in  his  church,  or  any  such  like 
crimes,  then  such  congregations,  whatever  they  may  call  themselves, 
and  whatever  show  they  may  make,  of  piety  and  devotion  in  their 
own  ways,  ought  to  be  esteemed  in  respect  of  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ,  only  as  excrescences  or  tumours  in  the  body  natural,  or 
perhaps  as  fungosities  in  an  ulcerated  tumour,  the  eating  away  of 
which  by  whatever  means  tends  not  to  the  hurt,  but  to  the  sound- 

*  Candid  Examination,  p.  37. 

f  A  Vindication  of  the  Professors  of  the  church  of  England  in  Connecticut, 
Ac;  by  James  Wetmore,  Rector  of  the  parish  of  Rye,  and  Missionaiy  of 
the  Venerable  Society,  &c.  Boston,  1747,  p.  6.  Dr.  Sprague's  Collection, 
vol  414. 


384  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

ness  and  health  of  the  body."*  In  another  place  he  says,  on  the 
assumption  that  the  constitution  of  the  national  church  is  regular 
and  good,  "It  may  surely  be. urged  on  every  man  that  is  English, 
that  belongs  to  this  nation,  and  is  properly  a  part  of  it,  in  what- 
ever corner  of  it  he  may  live,  that  his  duty  obliges  him  to  be  of  the 
communion  of  the  church  of  England. "f  And  again,  "  Every  one 
who  makes  a  part  of  this  nation,  owes  reverence  and  submission  to 
them,  (the  bishops.)  under  Christ,  and  may  esteem  our  Saviour's 
words  to  his  disciples  applicable  to  such  prelates ;  '  He  that  despi* 
seth  you  despiscth  me.'  "J  The  awful  crime  of  schism  begun  in 
England,  he  argues,  could  not  be  washed  away  by  crossing  the 
ocean,  into  "  a  new  country  dependent  on,  and  a  part  of  the  nation 
of  England. "§  The  doctrine  of  this  whole  Tract  is,  that  the  church 
of  England  is  the  established  church  of  the  nation  of  England;  the 
colonies  are  a  part  of  that  nation,  and  therefore  are  bound  not  only 
morally  but  legally  to  be  of  the  communion  of  that  church,  or  to 
take  the  benefit  of  the  act  of  toleration. 

This  was  the  doctrine  not  merely  of  heated  partisans,  but  of 
men  in  high  stations  and  authority.  It  has  already  been  stated, 
that  the  proprietors  of  South  Carolina  distinctly  assumed  this 
ground.  "  The  Church  of  England  being  the  only  true,  and  ortho- 
dox, and  National  Church,  of  all  the  king's  dominions,  is  so  also 
of  Carolina."  And  they  drew  from  the  principle  the  legitimate 
inference,  when  they  added,  "  And  therefore  it  alone  shall  be 
allowed  to  receive  pnblic  maintenance  by  grant  of  Parliament," 
i.  e.  the  Provincial  Parliament. 

When  Lord  Cornbury  was  made  Governor  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  in  1702,  he  was  instructed  and  enjoined  by  the  govern- 
ment to  take  special  care  that  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  by 
law  established,  should  be  read  every  Sunday  and  holyday,  and 
the  blessed  sacrament  administered  according  to  the  rites  of  the 
Church  of  England;  that  churches  should  be  repaired,  or  built; 
that  a  competent  maintenance  be  provided  for  the  clergy,  with  a 
house  and  glebe  in  each  parish,  all  at  the  common  charge ;  and  he 
was  forbidden  to  prefer  any  man  to  any  benefice  who  had  not  a 

*  A  Vindication,  &c.  p.  29.      f  Ibid.  p.  37.      J  Ibid.  p.  38.     \  Ibid.  p.  40. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  3S5 

certificate  from  the  Bishop  of  London.*  These  instructions  related 
to  colonies  in  one  of  which  the  Episcopalians,  at  that  time,  were 
six  hundred  to  fifteen  thousand  ;  and  in  the  other,  twelve  hundred 
to  thirty  thousand.  Lord  Cornbury  acted  up  to  these  directions 
with  a  zeal  which  even  his  most  determined  friends  must  have 
thought  indiscreet.  Our  limits  forbid  our  entering  upon  details, 
which  is  less  necessary,  as  the  complaints  and  apprehensions  of  the 
non-episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  colonies  were  not  founded  on  mere 
specific  acts  of  injustice  or  oppression,  so  much  as  upon  the  avowed 
or  tacit  adoption  of  the  principle,  that  the  English  ecclesiastical 
laws  extended  to  this  country.  This  assumption  was  openly  made 
when  the  Rev.  Mr.  Makemie  was  imprisoned  by  the  order  of  Lord 
Cornbury  for  preaching  in  New  York.  On  his  trial,  he  was  charged 
by  the  attorney-general  with  contemning  the  queen's  ecclesiastical 
supremacy ;  with  using  other  rites  and  ceremonies  than  those  con- 
tained in  the  Common  Prayer  Book ;  with  preaching  without  pro- 
per qualification,  at  an  illegal  conventicle,  all  which  was  declared 
to  be  contrary  to  the  English  statutes.f 

The  same  principle  was  assumed  in  the  case  of  the  application 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  New  York  for  a  charter.  Their 
petition  was  opposed  by  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,,  on  the 
ground  that  it  could  not  be  granted  consistently  with  the  acts  of 
uniformity,  nor  with  the  king's  coronation  oath,  by  which  he  was 
bound  to  uphold  the  Church  of  England,  not  only  in  England  and 
Ireland,  but  in  all  the  territories  thereunto  belonging.  The  pro- 
vincial authorities  considered  this  too  grave  a  question  for  them  to 
decide,  and  therefore  referred  it  to  the  government  at  home.  The 
Bishop  of  London  appeared  repeatedly  before  the  committee  of 
the  privy  council  in  opposition  to  the  petition,  and  it  was  finally 
decided  that,  without  expressing  an  opinion  as  to  these  legal  ques- 
tions, it  was  on  grounds  of  general  policy  inexpedient  to  grant  the 
Presbyterians  any  greater  privileges  than  they  were  entitled  to  by 
the  act  of  toleration.  This  was  virtually  a  decision  of  the  whole 
case ;  for  it  assumed  that  act  to  be  in  force  in  New  York,  which, 

*  See  his  instructions  in  Smith's  History  of  New  Jersey,  p.  252. 
t  Smith's  History  of  New  York,  p.  128. 
VOL.  II. — 25 


386  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

from  its  nature  was  impossible,  unless  the  acts  of  uniformity,  from 
whose  penalties  it  provided  exemption,  were  also  in  force.  Hence 
Dr.  Chauncey  had  good  reason  to  say,  "  That  decision  was  an 
alarm  to  all  the  colonies  on  the  continent,  giving  them  solemn 
notice  what  they  might  expect,  should  Episcopalians  ever  come  to 
have  the  superiority  in  their  influence."*  And  what  does  Dr. 
Chandler  sa}'  to  this  case  ?  "  How  far,"  he  says,  "  the  grant  would 
have  interfered  with  the  king's  coronation  oath,  it  becomes  me  not 
to  say ;  those  to  whom  it  was  referred  were  the  proper  judges ; 
and  in  their  opinion  the  petition  could  not  consistently  be  granted. 
It  is  the  unquestionable  duty  of  his  Majesty's  most  honourable 
privy  council,  to  advise  him  against  whatever  is  thought  by  them 
to  imply  a  breach  of  the  coronation  oath ;  it  is  a  duty  more  pecu- 
liarly incumbent  upon  any  such  bishops  as  his  majesty  thinks  fit  to 
call  up  to  that  high  trust.  If,  therefore,  the  Bishop  of  London, 
upon  the  above  principle,  was  more  active  than  others  in  opposing 
the  measure,  it  was  because  his  station  required  it.  If  general 
policy,  in  the  opinion  of  the  lords  of  trade,  was  also  against  the 
grant,  they  were  obliged  to  discountenance  it ;  and  the  petitioners, 
I  conceive,  ought  to  rest  satisfied,  especially  as  it  was  a  mere  favour 
which  was  requested,  and  more  than  was  thought  to  be  allowed  by 
the  laws  of  toleration.  I  have  been  moreover  told,  that,  besides 
the  reasons  assigned,  a  particular  policy  with  regard  to  the  Presby- 
terians in  New  York,  concurred  to  defeat  the  petition.  It  was  the 
belief  at  home,  that  the  Church  of  England  had  been  treated  with 
peculiar  malevolence  by  some  of  those  very  persons  whose  names 
were  annexed  to  that  petition.  It  was,  therefore,  not  unnatural  to 
suspect  that  any  additional  power  put  into  the  hands  of  such  per- 
sons, would,  as  opportunity  should  offer,  be  exerted  against  the 
church. "f  This  dread  of  power  in  the  hands  of  Presbyterians  is 
peculiarly  edifying,  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  power  asked 
for  was  the  right  to  hold  their  church  and  grave-yard  in  their  own 
name,  instead  of  being  obliged  to  vest  them  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Church  of  Scotland.     If  Episcopalians,  who  claimed  all 

*  Chauncey's  Reply  to  the  Appeal  Defended,  p.  179. 
t  The  Appeal  Defended,  by  Dr.  Chandler,  p.  234. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  3fe '• 

the  power  and  privileges  granted  by  the  English  laws  to  the  Church 
of  England,  might  dread  such  a  power  as  that,  surely  Presbyterians 
may  be  excused  for  standing  a  little  in  awe  of  them. 

We  see,  from  the  above  extract,  that  Dr.  Chandler  yielded  a  very 
cordial  assent  to  the  decision  that  the  king's  coronation  oath  bound 
him  to  consider  the  acts,  by  which  the  Church  of  England  was 
established,  as  extending  to  the  colonies ;  and  that  he  took  it  for 
granted  the  act  of  toleration  was  the  measure  of  the  liberties  and 
privileges  of  the  non-episcopal  churches  in  America.  The  coro- 
nation oath  was  founded  on  the  act  of  union  between  England  and 
Scotland.  At  the  time  of  the  union,  the  Scotch  stipulated  that 
the  united  Parliament  should  have  no  power  to  disturb  their  eccle- 
siastical constitution ;  and  the  English  stipulated  that  each  suc- 
ceeding sovereign  should  swear  to  maintain  the  Church  of  England 
as  by  law  established.  The  object,  therefore,  of  the  act  in  ques- 
tion was  to  protect  the  Church  of  England,  and  not  to  establish  it 
where  it  did  not  then  exist.  Such  being  its  design,  it  will  be  seen 
how  monstrous  was  the  assumption,  that  it  upset  all  the  charters 
of  the  New  England  colonies ;  rendered  void  all  the  contracts  with 
the  proprietary  governments  ;  nullified  all  the  colonial  laws  relating 
to  ecclesiastical  matters,  and  established  the  Church  of  England 
even  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  where,  at  the  time  of  its 
passage,  that  church  could  hardly  be  said  to  have  had  an  existence. 

As  another  instance  of  the  latitude  of  construction  given  by  those 
in  authority,  to  the  English  ecclesiastical  laws,  may  be  mentioned 
the  letter  of  the  Lords  Justices  in  England  to  the  Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor of  Massachusetts,  in  1725.  A  request  had  been  made  to  the 
authorities  of  that  province,  by  the  pastors,  to  be  allowed  to  hold  a 
Synod.  When  this  request  reached  the  ears  of  those  in  power  in 
England,  the  justices  wrote  a  severe  letter  to  the  governor  for  allow- 
ing the  matter  to  be  agitated.  They  say  they  can  find  no  warrant 
for  holding  such  a  Synod,  "  but  if  such  Synods  might  be  holden, 
yet  they  take  it  to  be  clear  in  point  of  law,  that  his  majesty's 
supremacy  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  being  a  branch  of  the  prerogative, 
does  take  place  in  the  plantations ;  and  Synods  cannot  be  held,  nor 
is  it  lawful  for  the  clergy  to  assemble  as  in  Synods,  without  author- 


3S8  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

ity  from  his  majesty."  In  case  the  Synod  had  actually  met  before 
these  instructions  came  to  hand,  the  lieutenant-governor  "  was  to 
cause  their  meeting  to  cease,  acquainting  them  that  their  assembly 
is  against  law  and  a  contempt  of  his  majesty's  prerogative,  and  that 
they  are  forbid  to  meet  any  more."* 

A  still  stronger  illustration  is  afforded  by  the  history  of  New 
Hampshire.  When  that  province  was  erected  into  a  separate  gov- 
ernment, in  1670,  it  was  ordered  that  all  protestants  should  be 
tolerated,  "  and  that  those  especially  as  shall  be  conformable  to  the 
rites  of  the  church  of  England  shall  be  particularly  countenanced 
and  encouraged."  In  1684,  an  order  was  issued  by  the  governor 
and  council,  requiring  the  ministers  to  admit  all  persons  of  suitable 
age,  and  not  vicious,  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  their  children  to 
baptism,  and  enjoining,  in  case  any  one  wished  either  of  the  sacra- 
ments to  be  administered  according  to  the  liturgy,  it  should  be  done, 
in  pursuance  to  the  king's  command,  in  the  colony  of  Massachu- 
setts ;  and  any  minister  who  refused  obedience  to  this  order  was  to 
suffer  the  penalties  of  the  statutes  of  uniformity.  This  declaration 
was  not  an  idle  threat;  the  Rev.  Mr.  Moody,  of  Portsmouth,  hav- 
ing refused  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  form  prescribed, 
was  sentenced  to  six  months'  imprisonment. f  The  same  instructions 
given  to  Lord  Co'rnbury  as  governor  of  East  and  West  Jersey, 
were  given  to  the  governor  of  this  province,  with  the  addition  that 
no  one  from  England  was  to  be  allowed  to  act  as  schoolmaster,  who 
was  not  furnished  with  a  certificate  from  the  bishop  of  London,  and 
no  other  person  without  the  governor's  license. 

The  non-episcopal  denominations,  therefore,  in  this  country,  had 
abundant  cause  for  alarm.  From  South  Carolina  to  New  Hamp- 
shire, they  saw  the  power  and  influence  of  the  government  exerted 
to  give  ascendency  to  the  Episcopal  church.  This  object  was  con- 
stantly though  cautiously  pursued.  It  was  natural  that  it  should 
be  so.  The  arguments  which  were  adduced  to  prove  that  the  church 
of  England  was  entitled  to  this  ascendency,  were  sufficiently  plaus- 
ible to  command  the  assent  of  those  who  were  anxious  to  be  con- 

*  Sec  the  whole  letter  in  the  Candid  Examination,  &c.  pp.  28-30. 
f  Belknap's  History  of  New  Hampshire,  vol.  i.  p.  206. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  389 

vinced.  And  the  motives  of  policy  in  behalf  of  the  measure,  were 
sufficiently  obvious  to  make  all  see  that  the  English  government 
would  pursue  it  as  far  as  it  could  be  done  with  safety.  Here,  as 
in  the  contest  about  taxation,  it  was  not  the  pressure  of  the  partic- 
ular acts  of  injury  or  indignity  that  produced  the  dissatisfaction ; 
but  the  power  that  was  claimed.  The  assumption  was  the  same  in 
both  cases,  viz. :  that  America  was  part  of  the  nation  of  England, 
that  the  power  of  the  king  and  parliament  was  here  what  it  was 
there.  Hence  on  the  one  hand,  the  inference  that  the  British  par- 
liament could  here  levy  what  taxes  they  pleased ;  and  on  the  other, 
that  the  king's  supremacy  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  extended  to  the 
colonies  ;  *that  every  Englishman  who  came  to  America,  did  but 
remove  from  one  part  of  the  nation  to  another ;  that  he  stood  in 
the  same  relation  to  the  national  church  in  this  country,  as  he  had 
done  in  England.  It  is  readily  admitted  that  as  there  were  some 
English  statesmen  who  denied  the  authority  of  parliament  to  tax 
America,  so  there  were  many  distinguished  men  who  denied  that 
the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  England  were  in  force  in  this  country. 
But  in  both  cases  the  interest,  and  bent,  and  general  course  of  the 
government,  were  against  the  liberties  of  the  colonies. 

Another  cause  of  irritation  and  uneasiness,  was  the  conduct  of 
the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts. 
The  principal  complaints  urged  against  it  were,  first,  that  instead 
of  sending  missionaries  to  the  heathen,  according  to  the  primary 
object  of  its  institution,  it  devoted  its  resources,  in  a  great  measure, 
to  the  American  colonies.  The  society  was  successfully  vindicated 
on  this  point  by  its  various  advocates.  It  was  proved  that  its 
charter  contemplated  the  colonies  as  a  prominent  if  not  the  chief 
field  of  its  labours.  And  when  we  consider  the  immense  extent 
and  crying  destitution  of  this  country,  we  shall  be  more  disposed 
to  wonder  and  complain  that  the  society  did  so  little,  than  that  it 
did  so  much  for  its  relief.  A  second  ground  of  complaint  was  more 
plausible.  It  was  urged  that  instead  of  sending  their  missionaries 
where  they  were  really  needed,  they  sent  them  to  New  England 
where  they  were  not  wanted.  At  this  time  there  were  at  least  five 
hundred  and  fifty  educated  ministers  in  New  England,  and  not  a 


390  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

town,  unless  just  settled,  without  a  pastor,  unless  it  was  in  Rhode 
Island.*  That  there  was  ground  for  this  complaint  against  the 
Society,  is  admitted  by  its  ablest  and  most  dignified  defender,  who 
Bays,  "  In  all  that  I  have  hitherto  said,  I  am  far  from  intending  to 
affirm  that  the  Society  hath  not  laid  out  in  Massachusetts  and  Con- 
necticut too  large  a  proportion  of  the  money  put  into  their  hands, 
considering  the  necessities  of  the  other  provinces. "f  It  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that  the  people  of  New  England  felt  irritated  by 
having  the  numerous  missionaries  of  a  powerful  Society  located 
among  them,  where  their  most  ostensible  object  was  not  to  supply 
the  destitute,  but  to  make  proselytes  from  established  congregations. 
The  claims  and  conduct  of  these  missionaries,  in  many  cases,  greatly 
increased  this  irritation.  They  spoke  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
town  in  which  they  lived,  as  their  parishioners  ;  as  bound  both  by 
the  law  of  God  and  the  state  to  be  in  communion  with  the  church 
of  England  ;  as  having  no  authorized  ministers  or  valid  ordinances  ; 
as  belonging  to  churches  which  were  mere  excrescences  or  fun- 
gosities. 

It  was  principally  from  the  missionaries  of  this  Society  that  the 
demand  for  American  bishops  proceeded.  It  has  already  been  stated 
how  small  a  portion  of  the  Virginia  clergy  concurred  in  the  appli- 
cation.;}; The  origin  of  the  plan,  therefore,  was  not  likely  to 
recommend  it  to  the  public.  For  all  the  legitimate  purposes  of  a 
bishop,  such  an  officer  was  most  needed  where  Episcopalians  were 

*  Chauncey's  Remarks  on  the  Bishop  of  LlandafTs  sermon.  Boston,  1767, 
p.  37;  Dr.  Sprague's  Collection,  vol.  418. 

f  An  answer  to  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observations  on  the  character  and  conduct 
of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation,  &c. ;  London,  1764,  p.  49  ;  Dr.  Sprague's 
Collection,  vol.  —  p.  49.  The  author  of  this  Tract  is  said  by  Dr.  Chandler,  to 
have  been  one  of  the  dignitaries  of  the  church  of  England  ;  and  it  contrasts 
very  favourably  with  some  of  the  controversial  pamphlets  of  the  missionaries 
of  the  Society. 

X  Dr.  Hawks  states,  that  the  applications  for  a  resident  bishop  were  made 
"  principally  by  the  clergy  of  the  northern  provinces."  Dr.  Hawks  italicises 
the  word  '  clergy'.  He  further  says,  that  the  convention  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey  sent  missionaries  to  the  South,  to  endeavour  to  secure  the  co-operation 
of  their  southern  brethren  in  the  prosecution  of  this  object. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  391 

the  most  numerous.  That  the  request  came  from  the  provinces 
where  they  were  a  small  minority,  could  not  fail  to  produce  the 
apprehension,  that  the  bishop's  influence  was  to  be  used  to  give 
that  minority  still  greater  ascendency. 

If  the  source  whence  this  application  emanated  excited  appre- 
hension, the  grounds  on  which  it  was  urged  did  not  tend  to  allay 
these  fears.  It  is  true  the  plan  was  exhibited  with  much  plausi- 
bility in  Dr.  Chandler's  Appeal.  He  frequently  asserts  that  the 
pow7er  of  the  proposed  bishop  was  to  be  derived  altogether  from 
the  church  and  not  from  the  state ;  that  he  was  not  to  be  received 
on  the  ground  of  a  state-establishment.  In  this  he  was  no  doubt 
sincere ;  but  he  and  his  readers  differed  widely  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  terms  here  employed.  If  the  bishop  was  not  to  receive  any 
power  from  the  state,  why  was  he  to  be  sent  by  act  of  Parliament  ? 
Dr.  Chandler  says,  that  when  bishops  were  first  proposed  for  this 
country,  they  were  spoken  of  as  suffragans,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
discharge  offices  merely  episcopal,  according  to  the  direction,  and 
by  virtue  of  a  commission  from  the  diocesan.  And  he  gives  his 
readers  to  understand  that  such  bishops  were  still  desired.  Then 
why  did  not  the  Bishop  of  London  consecrate  and  commission 
them,  without  troubling  Parliament  about  the  matter  ?  There  was 
no  legislative  act  necessary  to  authorize  the  sending  of  deacons, 
priests,  or  commissaries,  to  this  country;  why  then  was  such  an 
act  required  to  authorize  the  sending  a  suffragan  bishop  ?  Dr. 
Chandler  informs  us,  however,  that  when  the  Society  for  the  Pro- 
pagation of  the  Gospel  first  undertook  this  business,  they  "began 
by  making  all  proper  representations  of  the  case  to  the  Queen, 
(Anne ;)  they  proceeded  to  purchase  a  house  in  New  Jersey  for  the 
residence  of  a  bishop,  and  after  duly  preparing  the  wray,  obtained 
an  order  from  the  crown  for  a  bill  to  be  drawn  and  laid  before  Par- 
liament for  establishing  an  American  episcopate."  He  confirms  his 
representation  by  the  following  extract  from  the  published  proceed- 
ings of  the  Society :  "  A  representation  was  humbly  offered  to  her 
Majesty,  importing  what  number  of  bishops  was  expedient  to  be 
sent,  where  they  were  to  be  fixed,  and  what  revenues  might  be 
thought    proper   for   their    support.     To   which   her   Majesty   waa 


392  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

pleased  to  give  a  most  gracious  answer,  highly  satisfactory  to  the 
Society ;  and  a  draught  of  a  bill  was  ordered  proper  to  be  offered 
to  Parliament  for  establishing  bishops  and  bishopricks  in  America."* 
Now,  whatever  Dr.  Chandler  might  think  on  the  subject,  this  was 
a  plan  for  introducing  bishops  on  the  footing  of  a  state-establish- 
ment. They  were  to  be  sent  by  the  state ;  their  residence,  reve- 
nues, and  powers  were  to  be  ascertained  by  the  state ;  all,  or  at 
least  the  last,  were  to  be  fixed  by  act  of  Parliament.  No  one  at 
all  acquainted  with  the  temper  of  that  period,  or  who  knows  the 
power  which  the  authorities  in  England  were  accustomed  to  see  in 
the  hands  of  a  bishop,  can  wonder  that  not  only  the  non-episcopal 
clergy,  but  also  Episcopal  laymen  rose  in  opposition  to  this  plan ; 
that  the  House  of  Burgesses  in  Virginia  unanimously  protested 
against  it.  If  Parliament  was  to  determine  the  extent  of  these 
Episcopal  powers,  the  country  had  good  reason  to  be  assured  they 
would  be  made  as  large  as  was  consistent  with  safety.  It  was  a 
plan  to  let  Episcopalians  say  how  much  power  Episcopal  bishops 
should  have  over  other  denominations. 

Though  Dr.  Chandler  says  it  was  not  intended  to  allow  the  Ameri- 
can bishops  to  hold  ecclesiastical  courts,  or  to  interfere  with  ques- 
tions relating  to  wills,  marriage,  guardianship,  &c. ;  yet  he  clearly 
intimates  that  it  would  be  nothing  unreasonable,  if  important  civil 
powers  were  to  be  conferred  upon  them.  "There  is  not,"  he  says, 
"  the  least  prospect  at  present,  that  bishops  in  this  country  will 
ever  acquire  any  influence  or  power,  but  what  shall  arise  from  a 
general  opinion  of  their  abilities  and  integrity,  and  a  conviction 
of  their  usefulness ;  and  of  this  no  persons  need  dread  the  con- 
sequences. But  should  the  government  see  fit  hereafter  to  invest 
them  with  some  degree  of  civil  power  worthy  of  their  acceptance, 
which  it  is  impossible  to  say  they  will  not,  although  there  is  no 
appearance  that  they  ever  will ;  yet  as  no  new  powers  will  be 
created  in  favour  of  bishops,  it  is  inconceivable  that  any  would 
thereby  be  injured.  All  that  the  happiness  and  safety  of  the  public 
require,  is,  that  the  legislative  and  executive  power  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  such  persons  as  are  possessed  of  the  greatest  abilities, 

*  Appeal,  pp.  51,  52. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  393 

integrity,  and  prudence ;  and  it  is  hoped  that  our  bishops  will 
always  be  thought  to  deserve  this  character."*  If  Episcopalians 
were  afraid  to  allow  Presbyterians  an  act  of  incorporation  to  enable 
them  to  hold  their  church  and  grave-yard,  lest  they  should  use  the 
power  against  the  church,  could  Presbyterians  be  expected  to  regard 
with  indifference  legislative  or  executive  power  in  the  hands  of  an 
Episcopal  bishop,  especially  when  the  nature  and  extent  of  that 
power  were  to  be  determined  by  the  English  government  ?f 

Another  ground  of  apprehension  related  to  the  support  of  these 
bishops.  The  country  had  abundant  reason  to  expect  that  this 
burden  would,  sooner  or  later,  be  thrown  upon  the  public.  Wherever 
the  government  were  able  to  effect  the  object,  they  had  already 
thrown  the  support  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  upon  the  commnnity. 
This  had  been  done  in  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  and  Maryland. 
To  a  certain  extent  it  had  been  done  in  New  York ;  and  the  royal 
governors  in  other  provinces  had  orders  to  accomplish  the  same 
object  as  far  as  possible.  With  regard  to  the  bishops,  Dr.  Chandler 
says,  indeed,  that  there  was  no  intention  to  tax  the  country  for 
their  support ;  yet  he  distinctly  recognizes  both  the  right  and  rea- 
sonableness of  such  a  tax.  "  Should,"  says  he,  "a  general  tax  be 
laid  upon  the  country,  and  thereby  a  sum  be  raised  sufficient  for 
the  purpose ;  and  even  supposing  we  should  have  three  bishops  on 
the  continent,  which  are  the  most  that  have  been  mentioned,  yet  I 
believe  such  a  tax  would  not  amount  to  more  than  four  pence  in  a 
hundred  pounds.  And  this  would  be  no  mighty  hardship  to  the 
country.  He  that  could  think  much  of  giving  the  six  thousandth 
part  of  his  income  to  any  use  which  the  legislature  of  his  country 
should  assign,  deserves  not  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  good 
subject  or  member  of  society. "J  What  mighty  hardship  to  the 
country  was  a  tax  of  three  pence  on  a  pound  of  tea  ?  Yet  how 
great  a  matter   that  little  fire  kindled  !     Dr.  Chandler  evidently 

*  Appeal,  p.  110. 

t  Dr.  Chandler  says,  in  the  Defence  of  the  Appeal,  that  the  above  case  was 
only  hypothetical.  The  hypothesis,  however,  was  so  put,  as  to  show  that  he 
regarded  the  possession  of  civil  power  by  American  bishops,  as  no  just  ground 
of  complaint.  J  Appeal,  p.  107 


894  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

assumed  two  things,  which  America  never  Mould  quietly  submit 
to.  The  one  was,  that  the  English  Parliament  had  a  right  to 
lay  a  general  tax  upon  the  country ;  and  the  other,  that  they 
had  a  right  to  tax  the  whole  community  for  the  support  of  the 
Episcopal  Church.  Here  was  the  old  error,  viz. :  that  America 
was  part  of  the  nation  of  England,  and  consequently  that  the 
Parliament  had  the  same  power  here  as  there ;  and  that  the  Epis- 
copal Church  was  the  national  church  in  the  one  country  as  well 
as  in  the  other.* 

The  political  motives  urged  by  Dr.  Chandler  in  support  of  his 
plea  for  bishops,  were  not  suited  to  conciliate  special  favour  to  the 
plan.  "Episcopacy  and  monarchy,"  he  says,  "are,  in  their  frame 
and  constitution,  best  suited  to  each  other.  Episcopacy  can  never 
thrive  in  a  republican  government,  nor  republican  principles  in  an 
Episcopal  Church."  Experience  has  proved  this  opinion  to  be 
incorrect.  The  Episcopal  Church  never  flourished  in  this  country 
so  much  as  since  the  establishment  of  the  republic.  Dr.  Chandler 
goes  on  to  say,  that  as  episcopacy  and  monarchy  "  are  mutually 

*  What  Dr.  Chandler  says  in  the  Defence  of  his  Appeal,  in  reference  to  the 
passage  cited  above,  does  not  remove  its  objectionable  character.  He  repeats 
his  denial  that  the  imposition  of  a  tax  was  either  probable  or  intended,  and 
"  Further,  to  show  that  America  had  no  need  to  be  terrified  on  that  account," 
he  adds,  "  I  considered  the  matter  under  the  most  unfavourable  supposition 
that  could  be  made,  namely,  that  the  deficiency  in  the  Episcopal  fund  should 
be  answered  by  a  tax  upon  the  inhabitants,  and  declared  it  as  my  opinion, 
that  such  a  tax  would  be  inconsiderable,  and  amount  to  no  more  than  four 
pence  in  a  hundred  pounds,"  p.  249.  The  objection  was  not  to  the  amount 
of  the  tax,  but  to  a  tax  at  all ;  and  especially  to  a  tax  for  such  a  purpose. 
His  language  in  both  passages  clearly  implies,  that  he  recognized  the  power 
to  impose  such  a  tax,  and  that  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  complain  of  it. 
This  supremacy  of  the  imperial  Parliament,  England  never  would  give  up. 
Had  she  been  willing  to  adopt  the  theory  which  Franklin  urged  in  vain  upon 
her  statesmen,  and  agreed  to  make  the  king  and  not  the  Parliament,  the  bond 
of  union  between  the  countries,  allowing  every  province,  important  enough  to 
have  a  legislature,  to  govern  itself  as  Scotland  did  before  the  union  ;  had,  in 
other  words,  the  bonds  of  union  been  made  so  loose  as  not  to  be  galling,  the 
British  monarch  might  have  swayed  a  peaceful  sceptre  over  near  half  the 
world.  God  has  ordered  it  otherwise,  and  therefore  it  is  best  it  should  be 
otherwise. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  395 

adapted  to  each  other,  so  they  are  mutually  introductive  of  each 
other.  He  that  prefers  monarchy  in  the  state,  is  more  likely  to 
approve  of  episcopacy  in  the  church  than  a  rigid  republican.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  that  is  for  parity  and  a  popular  government 
in  the  church,  will  more  easily  be  led  to  approve  of  a  similar  form 
of  government  in  the  state,  how  little  soever  he  may  suspect  it 
himself.  It  is  not  then  to  be  wondered,  if  our  civil  rulers  have 
always  considered  episcopacy  as  the  surest  friend  of  monarchy ; 
and  it  may  reasonably  be  expected  from  those  in  authority,  that 
they  will  support  and  assist  the  church  in  America,  if  from  no  other 
motives,  yet  from  a  regard  to  the  state,  with  which  it  has  so  friendly 
and  close  an  alliance."*  As  there  was  at  this  time  a  rapidly  in- 
creasing dread  of  the  power  of  the  mother  country,  the  considera- 
tion that  the  introduction  of  bishops  would  tend  to  increase  that 
power,  and  strengthen  the  government,  was  not  suited  to  allay 
apprehension  or  to  conciliate  favour. 

This  long  detail  respecting  a  controversy  now  almost  forgotten, 
may  be  excused  since  it  relates  to  an  important  chapter  in  the 
history  not  only  of  our  church,  but  of  the  country.  This  contro- 
versy had  more  to  do  with  the  revolution  than  is  generally  sup- 
posed ;  and  a  knowledge  of  the  leading  facts  in  the  case  is  neces- 
sary to  free  Presbyterians  and  other  denominations,  from  the 
charge  of  unreasonable  and  bigoted  opposition  to  a  church  fully 
entitled  to  confidence  and  affection.  Before  the  revolution  the 
Episcopal  Church,  from  its  connection  with  the  English  govern- 
ment, and  from  its  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  branch  of  a  great 
national  establishment,  was  justly  an  object  of  apprehension.  And 
this  apprehension  was  confirmed  and  deepened  by  a  long  series 
of  encroachments  on  the  rights  of  other  denominations.  After 
the  revolution,  that  church  ceased  to  be  the  Church  of  England, 
and  became  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States. 
Since  she  has  taken  her  stand  on  equal  terms  with  sister  churches, 
she  is  the  object  of  no  other  feelings  than  respect  and  love,  wherever 
she  consents  to  acknowledge  that  equality. 

*  Appeal,  p.  115. 


396  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

THE    CONDUCT    OF    THE    SYNOD    IN    REFERENCE    TO    THE 
REVOLUTION. 

After  reading  the  preceding  section,  no  one  need  be  at  a  loss  to 
conjecture  the  part  taken  by  the  Synod  in  relation  to  the  great 
struggle  for  the  liberties  of  America.  The  position  in  which  the 
Presbyterians  and  other  non-episcopal  denominations  stood  to  the 
English  government,  naturally  placed  them  in  the  opposition.  The 
declaration  of  the  English  parliament,  "  That  the  king's  majesty, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  lords  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, and  commons  of  Great  Britain,  in  parliament  assembled,  had, 
hath,  and  of  right  ought  to  have  full  power  and  authority  to  make 
laws  and  statutes  of  sufficient  force  and  validity  to  bind  the  colo- 
nies and  people  of  America,  subjects  of  the  crown  of  Great  Britain, 
in  all  cases  whatsoever  ;"*  was  quite  as  alarming  in  reference  to  the 
religious  as  to  the  civil  liberties  of  the  people.  No  one  doubted 
that  the  English  parliament  believed  an  established  church  desira- 
ble, or  that  the  Episcopal  Church  was,  in  their  opinion,  the  best  and 
safest  form  of  religion ;  and  no  one  could  doubt,  as  they  claimed 
the  power,  they  would  give  that  church  an  effective  establishment 
in  every  colony  sufficiently  under  their  control.  In  almost  every 
province,  all  denominations,  except  the  Episcopal,  were  regarded  as 
merely  tolerated  in  their  own  country,  and  were  subject  to  many 
unjust  demands  peculiar  to  themselves.  It  was  impossible  that  the 
great  majority  of  the  people  could  be  treated  as  inferiors  ;  could 
be  denied  privileges  which  they  considered  their  due :  or  that  they 
could  see  a  small  minority  of  their  fellow-citizens  regarded  as  stand- 
ing in  an  alliance  to  the  state  peculiarly  friendly  and  close,  and  on 
that  account  treated  with  special  favour,  without  being  discontented 
and  uneasy.  The  declaration  of  independence  was  for  all  such,  a 
declaration  of  religious,  as  well  as  of  civil  liberty.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising, therefore,  that  the  non-episcopal  clergy  entered  into  the 
conflict  with  a  decision  which,  in  many  cases,  would  render  it  more 
easy  to  prove  that  they  did  too  much,  than  that  they  did  too 
little. 

*  Gen.  Conway's  resolutions,  passed  by  the  House  of  Commons,  Feb.  1766 


IN    THE    UNITED     STATES.  397 

If  it  was  natural  that  Presbyterians  should  side  with  America  in 
that  hour  of  trial,  it  was  no  less  natural  that  the  Episcopal  clergy 
should  side  with  the  mother  country.  They  had  no  peculiar  griev- 
ances to  complain  of,  nor  any  fear  for  the  liberty  of  their  church 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  to  England  they  looked  for  support,  for 
patronage,  for  legal  provision,  for  that  property  and  pre-eminence 
which  they  thought  due  to  them  as  a  branch  of  the  national  church. 
Besides,  many  of  them  were  born,  and  all  had  been  ordained  in 
England,  and  personally  had  taken  an  oath  of  allegiance.  They 
were  bound,  therefore,  by  peculiar  ties ;  ties  which,  it  can  well  be 
imagined,  good  men  Avould  find  it  hard  to  break.  Instead,  there- 
fore, of  its  being  a  matter  of  surprise  that  the  majority  of  the 
Episcopal  clergy  took  part  with  England,  the  wonder  is  that  so  many 
sided  with  America.  Those  who  did  so,  did  it  at  a  great  sacrifice. 
They  contended  against  their  own  apparent  interests ;  and  were 
either  very  enlightened  patriots,  or  very  indifferent  churchmen. 
Considering,  then,  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  Episcopal  clergy 
at  that  time,  so  far  from  being  disposed  to  make  it  a  matter  of  re- 
proach that  they  adhered  to  their  allegiance  to  the  mother  country, 
we  are  disposed  to  think  that,  as  a  general  rule,  they  were  those  of 
most  moral  worth,  and  most  entitled  to  respect,  who  took  this  course. 
This,  however,  must  not  be  considered  as  an  injurious  reflection  on 
the  patriot  clergy.  While  some  of  them  took  commissions  in  the 
army,  others  remained  faithful  at  once  to  religion  and  their  country. 
The  venerable  Bishop  White,  an  ornament  to  the  church  universal, 
was  for  a  long  time  the  chaplain  of  Congress,  and  acted  with 
deliberation,  and  well  considered  principle  in  the  course  which  he 
adopted.*     The  laymen  of  the  Episcopal  Church  did  not  feel  them- 

*  In  a  letter  to  Bishop  Hobart,  he  says  :  "  I  continued,  as  did  all  of  us,  to 
pray  for  the  king,  until  Sunday,  (inclusively,)  before  the  fourth  of  July,  1776. 
Within  a  short  time  after,  I  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States, 
and  have  since  remained  faithful  to  it.  My  intentions  were  upright  and  most 
seriously  weighed ;   and  I  hope  they  were  not  in  contrariety  to  my  duty." 

In  another  place  he  says:  "Owing  to  the  circumstances  of  many  able  and 
worthy  ministers  cherishing  their  allegiance  to  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  and 
entertaining  conscientious  scruples  against  the  use  of  the  liturgy,  with  the 
omission  of  the  appointed  prayers  for  him,  they  ceased  to  officiate,  and  the 


398  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

selves  trammeled  in  the  same  manner,  or  to  the  same  extent  as 
the  ministers,  and  hence  some  of  the  most  prominent  and  influential 
of  the  public  leaders  of  the  day  belonged  to  that  church. 

The  part  taken  by  Presbyterians  in  the  contest  with  the  mother 
country,  was,  at  the  time,  often  made  a  ground  of  reproach ;  and 
the  connection  between  their  efforts  for  the  security  of  their  re- 
ligious liberty,  and  opposition  to  the  oppressive  measures  of  Par- 
liament, was  then  distinctly  seen.  Mr.  Galloway,  a  prominent 
advocate  of  the  government,  ascribed,  in  1774,  the  revolt  and  revo- 
lution mainly  to  the  action  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy  and  laity  as 
early  as  1764,  when  the  proposition  for  a  General  Synod  emanated 
from  a  committee  appointed  for  that  purpose  in  Philadelphia.* 
This  was  a  great  exaggeration  and  mistake,  but  it  indicates  the 
close  connection  between  the  civil  and  religious  part  of  the  contro- 
versy. The  same  writer  describes  the  opponents  of  the  govern- 
ment, as  an  "  united  faction  of  Congregationalists,  Presbyterians, 
and  smugglers."  Another  writer  of  the  same  period  says:  "You 
will  have  discovered  that  I  am  no  friend  to  Presbyterians,  and  that 
I  fix  all  the  blame  of  these  extraordinary  American  proceedings 
upon  them."f  He  goes  on,  "  Believe,  sir,  the  Presbyterians  have 
been  the  chief  and  principal  instruments  in  all  these  flaming  mea- 
sures ;  and  they  always  do  and  ever  will  act  against  government, 
from  that  restless  and  turbulent  anti-monarchical  spirit  which  has 
always  distinguished  them  every  where  when  they  had,  or  by  any 
means  could  assume  power,  however  illegally." 

As  the  conduct  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy  during  the  revolu- 
tionary war  is  not  a  matter  of  dispute,  all  that  we  are  called  upon 
to  do,  is  briefly  to  exhibit  the  action  of  the  Synod  in  reference  to 
this  subject.  One  of  the  first  exercises  of  the  power  claimed  by 
Parliament  to  impose  taxes  on  America,  was  the  passage  of  the 

doors  of  far  the  greater  number  of  Episcopal  churches  were  closed  for  years. 
In  this  state  there  was  a  part  of  that  time  in  which  there  was,  through  the 
whole  extent,  but  one  resident  minister  of  the  church  in  question :  he  who 
ecords  the  fact,"— See  Address,  &c.  by  William  B.  Reed.    Philadelphia,  1838 

*  Reed's  Address,  p.  51. 

f  By  Presbyterians,  this  writer  means  non-episcopalians. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  399 

Stamp-Act  in  1764.  The  opposition  to  this  measure  was  so  gene- 
ral and  vehement,  that  the  British  Government  thought  proper  to 
repeal  the  act,  though  they  accompanied  the  repeal  with  the  strongest 
declarations  of  their  right  to  tax  the  colonies  at  discretion.  In 
the  controversy  relating  to  this  subject,  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  publicly  expressed  their  sympathy  with  their  fel- 
low-citizens. As  soon  as  the  repeal  was  known  in  this  country, 
"  An  overture  was  made  by  Dr.  Alison,  that  an  address  be  pre- 
sented to  our  sovereign  on  the  joyful  occasion  of  the  repeal  of  the 
Stamp-Act,  and  thereby  a  confirmation  of  our  liberties ;  and  at 
the  same  time  proposing  a  copy  of  an  address  for  examination, 
which  was  read  and  approved,"  but  not  recorded.*  The  Synod 
also  addressed  a  pastoral  letter  to  the  churches,  filled  with  patriotic 
and  pious  sentiments.  They  remind  the  people,  that  after  God 
had  delivered  the  country  from  the  horrors  of  the  French  and 
Indian  war,  instead  of  rendering  to  him  according  to  the  multitude 
of  his  mercies,  they  had  become  more  wicked  than  ever.  "  The 
Almighty  thus  provoked,  permitted  counsels  of  the  most  pernicious 
tendency,  both  to  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies.  The  imposition 
of  unusual  taxes,  a  severe  restriction  of  our  trade,  and  an  almost 
total  stagnation  of  business,  threatened  us  with  universal  ruin.  A 
long  suspense  whether  we  should  be  deprived  of,  or  restored  to 
a  peaceable  enjoyment  of  the  inestimable  privileges  of  English 
liberty,  filled  every  breast  with  painful  anxiety."  They  express 
their  joy  that  government  had  been  induced  to  resort  to  moderate 
measures,  instead  of  appealing  to  force ;  and  call  upon  the  people 
to  bless  God,  who,  notwithstanding  their  sins,  had  saved  them  from 
the  horrors  of  a  civil  war.  They,  finally,  earnestly  exhort  their 
people  not  to  add  to  the  common  stock  of  guilt,  but  "  to  be  strict 
in  observing  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  Jesus  Christ ;  to  pay  a 
sacred  regard  to  his  Sabbaths  ;  to  reverence  his  holy  name,  and  to 
adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour  by  good  works.  "  We  pray 
you,"  say  the  Synod,  "to  seek  earnestly  the  saving  knowledge  of 
Christ,  and  the  internal  power  and  spirit  of  religion.  Thus  may 
you  hope  for  the  continued  kindness  of  a  gracious  Providence ;  and 

*  Minutes,  p.  144. 


400  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

this  is  the  right  way  to  express  your  gratitude  to  the  Father  of 
mercies  for  your  late  glorious  deliverance.  But  persisting  to  grieve 
his  Holy  Spirit  by  a  neglect  of  vital  religion,  and  a  continuance 
of  sin,  you  have  reason  to  dread  that  a  holy  God  will  punish  you 
yet  seven  times  more  for  your  iniquities."* 

In  this  letter,  as  in  all  the  public  documents  issued  before  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  there  are  strong  expressions  of 
loyalty,  and  of  the  wish  to  preserve  inviolate  the  union  with  the 
mother  country.  In  the  declaration  of  rights  by  the  Congress 
held  at  New  York,  in  October,  1765,  it  is  said:  "The  members  of 
this  Congress,  sincerely  devoted  with  the  warmest  sentiments  of 
affection  and  duty  to  his  Majesty's  person  and  government,  invio- 
lably attached  to  the  present  happy  establishment  of  the  Protestant 
succession,  &c,  &c,  esteem  it  our  indispensable  duty  to  make  the 
following  declarations  of  our  humble  opinion  respecting  the  most 
essential  rights  and  liberties  of  the  colonists."  The  first  declara- 
tion is :  "  That  his  Majesty's  subjects  in  these  colonies  owe  the 
same  allegiance  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  that  is  owing  from 
subjects  born  within  the  realm,  and  all  due  subjection  to  that  august 
body  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  "f  And  the  Congress  held  at 
Philadelphia,  September,  1774,  in  their  address  to  the  people  of  Great 
Britain,  say:  "You  have  been  told  that  we  are  seditious,  impatient 
of  government,  and  desirous  of  independence.  Be  assured  that 
these  are  not  facts,  but  calumnies.  Permit  us  to  be  as  free  as 
yourselves,  and  we  shall  ever  esteem  an  union  with  you  to  be  our 
greatest  glory  and  our  greatest  happiness ;  we  shall  ever  be  ready 
to  contribute  all  in  our  power  to  the  welfare  of  the  empire;  we 
consider  your  enemies  as  our  enemies,  and  your  interests  as  our 
own. "|  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  these  declarations 
were  as  sincere  as  they  were  general.  The  American  patriots 
regarded  separation  from  the  mother  country  as  a  great  evil ;  and 
to  the  last  moment  cherished  the  hope  that  some  accommodation 
■night  be  made,  which  should  secure  them  the  enjoyment  of  their 
rights,  and  avoid  the  necessity  of  a  violent  separation. 

*  Minutes,  p.  151. 

t  See  Pitkin's  Political  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i   p.  440. 

t  Ibid.  481. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  401 

As  the  indications  of  the  coming  conflict  began  to  multiply,  the 
Synod  endeavoured  to  prepare  their  people  for  the  trial.  Almost 
every  year  they  appointed  days  for  special  prayer  and  fasting,  and 
presented  "the  threatening  aspect  of  public  affairs,"  as  one  of  the 
most  prominent  reasons  of  their  observance.  In  1775,  the  record 
on  this  subject  is  to  the  following  effect :  "  The  Synod  considering 
the  present  alarming  state  of  public  affairs,  do  unanimously  judge 
it  their  duty  to  call  all  the  congregations  under  their  care,  to  solemn 
fasting,  humiliation,  and  prayer  ;  and  for  this  purpose  appoint  the 
last  Thursday  of  June  next  to  be  carefully  and  religiously  observed. 
But  as  the  Continental  Congress  are  now  sitting,  who  may  probably 
appoint  a  fast  for  the  same  purpose,  the  Synod,  from  respect  to 
that  august  body,  and  for  greater  harmony  with  other  denomina- 
tions, and  for  the  greater  public  order,  if  the  Congress  shall  ap- 
point a  day  not  above  four  weeks  distant  from  the  said  last  Thurs- 
day of  June,  order  that  the  congregations  belonging  to  this  Synod, 
do  keep  the  day  appointed  by  Congress  in  obedience  to  this  reso- 
lution ;  and  if  they  appoint  a  day  more  distant,  the  Synod  order 
both  to  be  observed  by  all  our  communion.  The  Synod  also  ear- 
nestly recommend  it  to  all  the  congregations  under  their  care,  to 
spend  the  afternoon  of  the  last  Thursday  in  every  month,  in  public 
solemn  prayer  to  God,  during  the  continuance  of  our  present  trou- 
bles."* This  recommendation  of  the  observance  of  a  day  for 
prayer  every  month,  was  frequently  repeated  during  the  war. 

In  this  memorable  year  also,  the  Synod  addressed  a  long  and 
excellent  letter  to  the  churches.  It  thus  begins  :  "  The  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  being  met  at  a  time  when  public  affairs 
wear  so  threatening  an  aspect,  and  when,  unless  God  in  his  sove- 
reign providence  speedily  prevent  it,  all  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war 
throughout  this  great  continent  are  to  be  apprehended,  were  of 
opinion  that  they  could  not  discharge  their  duty  to  the  numerous 
congregations  under  their  care,  without  addressing  them  at  this 
important  crisis.  As  the  firm  belief  and  habitual  recollection  of 
the  power  and  presence  of  the  living  God,  ought  at  all  times  to 
possess    the   minds    of  real   Christians ;    so   in    seasons   of  public 

*  Minutes,  p.  317. 

vol.  ii. — 26 


402  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

calamity,  when  the  Lord  is  known  by  the  judgments  which  ho 
executeth,  it  would  be  an  ignorance  or  indifference  highly  criminal, 
not  to  look  up  to  him  with  reverence,  to  implore  his  mercy  by 
humble  and  fervent  prayer,  and  if  possible, 'to  prevent  his  ven- 
geance, by  timely  repentance.  We  do,  therefore,  brethren,  beseech 
you,  in  the  most  earnest  manner,  to  look  beyond  the  immediate 
authors,  either  of  your  sufferings  or  fears,  and  to  acknowledge  the 
holiness  and  justice  of  the  Almighty  in  the  present  visitation." 
The  Synod  then  exhort  the  people  to  confession  and  repentance ; 
reminding  them  that  their  prayers  should  be  attended  with  a  sin- 
cere purpose  and  thorough  endeavour  after  personal  and  family 
reformation.  "  If  thou  prepare  thine  heart  and  stretch  out  thine 
hand  towards  him,  if  iniquity  be  in  thine  hands,  put  it  far  away, 
and  let  not  wickedness  dwell  in  thy  tabernacles." 

They  considered  it  also  a  proper  time  to  press  on  all  of  every 
rank,  seriously  to  consider  the  things  which  belong  to  their  eternal 
peace,  saying,  "  Hostilities  long  feared,  have  now  taken  place  ;  the 
sword  has  been  drawn  in  one  province ;  and  the  whole  continent, 
with  hardly  any  exception,  seem  determined  to  defend  their  rights 
by  force  of  arms.  If  at  the  same  time  the  British  ministry  shall 
continue  to  enforce  their  claims  by  violence,  a  lasting  and  bloody 
contest  must  be  expected.  Surely  then  it  becomes  those  who 
have  taken  up  arms,  and  profess  a  willingness  to  hazard  their  lives 
in  the  cause  of  liberty,  to  be  prepared  for  death,  which  to  many 
must  be  certain,  and  to  every  one  is  a  possible  or  probable  event. 

"  We  have  long  seen  with  concern  the  circumstances  which  occa- 
sioned, and  the  gradual  increase  of  this  unhappy  difference.  As 
ministers  of  the  gospel  of  peace,  we  have  ardently  wished  that  it 
might  be,  and  often  hoped  that  it  would  have  been  more  early 
accommodated.  It  is  well  known  to  you,  otherwise  it  would  be 
imprudent  indeed  thus  publicly  to  profess,  that  we  have  not  been 
instrumental  in  inflaming  the  minds  of  the  people,  or  urging  them 
to  acts  of  violence  and  disorder.  Perhaps  no  instance  can  be  given 
on  so  interesting  a  subject,  in  which  political  sentiments  ha.ve  been 
so  long  and  fully  kept  from  the  pulpit ;  and  even  malice  itself  has 
not  charged  us  with  labouring  from  the  press.     But  things  have 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  403 

now  come  to  such  a  state,  that  as  we  do  not  wish  to  conceal  our 
opinions  as  men  and  citizens,  so  the  relation  in  which  we  stand  to 
you,  seemed  to  make  the  present  improvement  of  it  to  your  spirit- 
ual benefit,  an  indispensable  duty." 

Then  follows  an  exhortation  directed  principally  to  young  men 
who  might  offer  themselves  as  "  champions  of  their  country's  cause," 
to  cultivate  piety,  to  reverence  the  name  of  God,  and  to  trust  his 
providence.  "  The  Lord  is  with  you  while  ye  be  with  him  ;  and  if 
ye  seek  him,  he  will  be  found  of  you ;  but  if  ye  forsake  him,  he 
will  forsake  you." 

After  this  exhortation,  the  Synod  offered  special  counsels  to  the 
churches  as  to  their  public  and  general  conduct. 

"  First :  In  carrying  on  this  important  struggle,  let  every  oppor- 
tunity be  taken  to  express  your  attachment  and  respect  to  our 
sovereign  King  George,  and  to  the  revolution  principles  by  which 
his  august  family  was  seated  on  the  British  throne.  We  recommend, 
indeed,  not  only  allegiance  to  him  from  principle  and  duty,  as  the 
first  magistrate  of  the  empire,  but  esteem  and  reverence  for  the 
person  of  the  prince,  who  has  merited  well  of  his  subjects  on  many 
accounts,  and  who  has  probably  been  misled  into  his  late  and  present 
measures  by  those  about  him  ;  neither  have  we  any  doubt  that  they 
themselves  have  been  in  a  great  degree  deceived  by  false  represent- 
ations from  interested  persons  residing  in  America.  It  gives  us 
the  greatest  pleasure  to  say,  from  our  own  certain  knowledge  of  all 
belonging  to  our  communion,  and  from  the  best  means  of  informa- 
tion of  far  the  greatest  part  of  all  denominations  in  this  country, 
that  the  present  opposition  to  the  measures  of  administration,  does 
not  in  the  least  arise  from  disaffection  to  the  king,  or  a  desire  of 
separation  from  the  parent  state.  We  are  happy  in  being  able 
with  truth  to  affirm,  that  no  part  of  America  would  either  have 
approved  or  permitted  such  insults  as  have  been  offered  to  the 
sovereign  in  Great  Britain.  We  exhort  you,  therefore,  to  continue 
in  the  same  disposition,  and  not  to  suffer  oppression  or  injury  itself 
easily  to  provoke  you  to  any  thing  which  may  seem  to  betray  con- 
trary sentiments.  Let  it  ever  appear  that  you  only  desire  the 
preservation   and  security  of    those  rights  which  belong  to  you  as 


404  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

freemen  and  Britons,  and  that  reconciliation  upon  these  terms  is 
your  most  ardent  desire. 

"  Secondly,  be  careful  to  maintain  the  union  which  at  present 
subsists  through  all  the  colonies.  Nothing  can  be  more  manifest 
than  that  the  success  of  every  measure  depends  on  its  being  invio- 
lably preserved ;  and,  therefore,  we  hope  you  will  leave  nothing  un- 
done which  can  promote  that  end.  In  particular,  as  the  Continental 
Congress,  now  sitting  at  Philadelphia,  consists  of  delegates  chosen 
in  the  most  free  and  unbiassed  manner,  by  the  body  of  the  people, 
let  them  not  only  be  treated  with  respect,  and  encouraged  in  their 
difficult  service  ;  not  only  let  your  prayers  be  offered  up  to  God  for 
his  direction  in  their  proceedings,  but  adhere  firmly  to  their  resolu- 
tions ;  and  let  it  be  seen  that  they  are  able  to  bring  out  the  whole 
strength  of  this  vast  country  to  carry  them  into  execution.  We 
would  also  advise  for  the  same  purpose,  that  a  spirit  of  candour, 
charity,  and  mutual  esteem,  be  preserved  and  promoted  towards 
those  of  different  religious  denominations.  Persons  of  probity  and 
principle  of  every  profession,  should  be  united  together  as  servants 
of-  the  same  Master ;  and  the  experience  of  our  happy  concord 
hitherto  in  a  state  of  liberty,  should  engage  all  to  unite  in  support 
of  the  common  interest ;  for  there  is  no  example  in  history  in  which 
civil  liberty  was  destroyed,  and  the  rights  of  conscience  preserved 
entire. 

"Thirdly,  we  do  earnestly  exhort  and  beseech  the  societies  under 
our  care  to  be  strict  and  vigilant  in  their  private  government,  and 
to  watch  over  the  morals  of  their  several  members."  This  duty  is 
urged  at  some  length,  and  then  the  letter  proceeds  thus : 

"  Fourthly,  we  cannot  but  recommend  and  urge  in  the  warmest 
manner,  a  regard  to  order  and  the  public  peace  ;  and  as  in  many 
places,  during  the  confusion  that  prevails,  legal  proceedings  have 
become  difficult,  it  is  hoped  that  all  persons  will  conscientiously 
pay  their  just  debts,  and  to  the  utmost  of  their  power  serve  one 
another,  so  that  the  evils  inseparable  from  a  civil  war,  may  not  be 
augmented  by  wantonness  and  irregularity. 

"  Fifthly,  we  think  it  of  importance  at  this  time,  to  recommend 
to  all  of  every  rank,  but  especially  to  those  who  may  be  called  to 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  405 

action,  a  spirit  of  humanity  and  mercy.  Every  battle  of  the  war- 
rior is  with  confused  noise  and  garments  rolled  in  blood.  It  is 
impossible  to  appeal  to  the  sword  without  being  exposed  to  many 
scenes  of  cruelty  and  slaughter  ;  but  it  is  often  observed  that  civil 
wars  are  carried  on  with  a  rancour  and  spirit  of  revenge  much 
greater  than  those  between  independent  states.  The  injuries  re- 
ceived or  supposed,  in  civil  wars,  wound  more  deeply  than  those 
of  foreign  enemies.  It  is,  therefore,  more  necessary  to  guard 
against  this  abuse,  and  recommend  that  meekness  and  gentleness 
of  spirit  which  is  the  noblest  attendant  on  true  valour.  That  man 
will  light  most  bravely  who  never  begins  to  fight  till  it  is  necessary, 
and  who  ceases  to  fight  as  soon  as  the  necessity  is  over. 

"  Lastly,  we  would  recommend  to  all  the  societies  under  our  care, 
not  to  content  themselves  with  attending  devoutly  on  general  fasts, 
but  to  continue  habitually  in  the  exercise  of  prayer,  and  to  have 
frequent  occasional  voluntary  meetings  for  solemn  intercession  with 
God  on  this  impotant  trial.  Those  who  are  immediately  exposed  to 
danger  need  your  sympathy  ;  and  we  learn  from  the  Scriptures, 
that  fervency  and  importunity  are  the  very  characters  of  that 
prayer  of  the  righteous  man  that  availeth  much.  We  conclude 
with  our  most  earnest  prayer,  that  the  God  of  heaven  may  bless 
you  in  your  temporal  and  spiritual  concerns,  and  that  the  present 
unnatural  dispute  may  be  speedily  terminated  by  an  equitable  and 
lasting  settlement  on  constitutional  principles." 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Halsey,  it  is  recorded,  dissented  from  that  para.- 
graph  of  the  above  letter,  which  contains  the  declarations  of  alle- 
giance. This  gentleman,  it  seems,  was  at  least  a  year  in  advance, 
not  only  of  the  Synod,  but  of  Congress.  This  pastoral  letter  con- 
tains a  decided  and  unanimous  expression,  on  the  part  of  the  Synod, 
of  the  side  which  it  took  in  the  great  struggle  for  the  liberties  of 
America.  It  certainly  does  them  and  the  church  which  they  repi*e- 
sented,  great  honour.  They  adhered  to  the  last  to  the  duties  which 
they  owed  their  sovereign ;  they  approved  of  demanding  no  new 
liberties ;  they  required  only  the  secure  possession  of  privileges 
which  they  were  entitled  to  consider  as  their  birthright. 

A  month  after  the  publication  of  this  letter,  the  Presbyterian 


40f)  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

clergymen  of  Philadelphia  published  an  address  to  the  ministers 

and  Presbyterian  congregations  of  the  county  of ,  in  North 

Carolina.  It  seems  that  there  were  some  Presbyterians  in  that 
province  who  hesitated  as  to  the  course  which  they  ought  to  take 
in  the  coining  conflict.  This  is  the  more  to  be  wondered  at,  as 
North  Carolina  was  in  advance  of  almost  any  province  on  the  con- 
tinent in  its  opposition  to  the  British  authorities.  They  had  already 
driven  away  their  governor,  and  set  up  a  government  of  their  own  ; 
and  on  the  20th  of  May,  1775,  was  issued  the  famous  Mecklenburgh 
declaration  of  independence,  more  than  a  year  before  Congress 
ventured  upon  that  step.  The  name  of  the  county  is  left  blank  in 
the  title-page  of  this  address.  The  Philadelphia  ministers  say  to 
their  North  Carolina  brethren :  "  It  adds  greatly  to  our  distress  to 
hear  that  you  are  somehow  led  aside  from  the  cause  of  liberty  and 
freedom,  by  men  who  have  given  you  an  unfair  representation  of 
the  debate  between  the  parent  country  and  her  colonies."  They 
make  strong  professions  of  loyalty,  and  appeal  to  the  declarations 
of  Congress  on  the  subject ;  and  add,  "  We  want  no  new  privi- 
leges ;  let  us  continue  connected  with  them  as  we  were  before  the 
Stamp-Act,  and  we  demand  no  more."  They  refer  also  to  the 
pastoral  letter  of  the  Synod,  which  they  beg  their  brethren  to  read. 
They  then  recount  the  grievances  of  the  country,  especially  the 
claim  on  the  part  of  the  British  Parliament,  of  the  power  "  to 
make  laws  to  bind  us  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  By  virtue  of  this 
power,"  it  is  added,  "  they  have  established  Popery  in  Quebec,  and 
the  arbitrary  laws  of  France,  and  why  may  they  not  do  the  same 
in  Pennsylvania  or  North  Carolina?"  "What  shall  we  then  do," 
it  is  asked,  "  in  these  days  of  trouble  and  distress  ?  We  must  put 
our  trust  in  God,  who  is  a  present  help  in  the  time  of  trouble ;  but 
we  must  depend  on  him  in  the  use  of  means  ;  we  must  unite,  if 
possible,  as  one  man,  to  maintain  our  just  rights ;  not  by  fire  and 
sword,  or  by  shedding  the  blood  of  our  fellow-subjects,  unless  we 
are  driven  to  it  in  self-defence,  but  by  strictly  observing  such  reso- 
lutions neither  to  export  nor  import  goods,  as  may  be  recommended 
by  our  general  Congress."  Signed,  July  10th,  by  Francis  Alison, 
James  Sproat,  George  Duffield,  and  Robert  Davidson. 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  407 

The  Presbytery  of  Hanover,  in  a  memorial  presented  to  the 
Legislature  of  Virginia  in  1776,  expressed  with  earnestness  their 
hearty  adoption  of  their  country's  cause.  "  Your  memorialists," 
they  say,  "  are  governed  by  the  same  sentiments  which  have  in- 
spired the  United  States  of  America ;  and  are  determined  that 
nothing  in  our  power  or  influence  shall  be  wanting  to  give  success 
to  their  common  cause.  We  would  also  represent  that  dissenters 
from  the  Church  of  England,  in  this  country,  have  ever  been 
desirous  to  conduct  themselves  as  peaceable  members  of  the  civil 
government,  for  which  reason  they  have  hitherto  submitted  to 
several  ecclesiastical  burdens  and  restrictions,  that  are  inconsistent 
with  equal  liberty.  But  now,  when  the  many  and  grievous  oppres- 
sions of  our  mother  country  have  laid  this  continent  under  the 
necessity  of  casting  off  the  yoke  of  tyranny,  and  of  forming  in- 
dependent governments  upon  equitable  and  liberal  foundations,  we 
flatter  ourselves  we  shall  be  freed  from  all  the  incumbrances  which 
a  spirit  of  domination,  prejudice,  or  bigotry  hath  interwoven  with 
our  political  systems.  This  we  are  the  more  strongly  encouraged 
to  expect,  by  the  declaration  of  rights,  so  universally  applauded 
for  that  dignity,  firmness,  and  precision  with  which  it  delineates 
and  asserts  the  privileges  of  society,  and  the  prerogatives  of  human 
nature,  and  which  we  embrace  as  the  magna  charta  of  our  com- 
monwealth, that  can  never  be  violated  without  endangering  the 
grand  superstructure  it  was  destined  to  sustain."* 

As  at  the  beginning,  so  also  at  the  close  of  the  war,  the  Synod 
directed  a  pastoral  letter  to  their  congregations  expressing  their 
sentiments  in  relation  to  the  contest.  In  the  letter  written  in  1783, 
they  say :  "  We  cannot  help  congratulating  you  on  the  general 
and  almost  universal  attachment  of  the  Presbyterian  body  to  the 
cause  of  liberty  and  the  rights  of  mankind.  This  has  been  visible 
in  their  conduct,  and  has  been  confessed  by  the  complaints  and 
resentment  of  the  common  enemy.  Such  a  circumstance  ought  not 
only  to  afford  us  satisfaction  on  the  review,  as  bringing  credit  tc 
the  body  in  general,  but  to  increase  our  gratitude  to  God  for  the 
happy  issue  of  the  war.     Had  it  been  unsuccessful,  we  must  have 

*  Presbyterian  Church  in  Virginia,  by  Dr.  J.  H.  Rice,  p.  21. 


408  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

drunk  deep'y  of  the  cup  of  suffering.  Our  burnt  and  wasted 
churches,  and  our  plundered  dwellings,  in  such  places  as  fell  under 
the  power  of  our  adversaries,  are  but  an  earnest  of  what  we  must 
have  suffered,  had  they  finally  prevailed. 

"  The  Synod,  therefore,  request  you  to  render  thanks  to  Al- 
mighty God,  for  all  his  mercies  spiritual  and  temporal ;  and  in  a 
particular  manner  for  establishing  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  He  is  the  supreme  disposer,  and  to  Him 
belong  the  glory,  the  victory,  and  the  majesty.  We  are  persuaded 
you  will  easily  recollect  many  circumstances  in  the  course  of  the 
struggle,  which  point  out  his  special  and  signal  interposition  in  our 
favour.  Our  most  remarkable  successes  have  generally  been  when 
things  had  just  before  worn  the  most  unfavourable  aspect ;  as  at 
Trenton  and  Saratoga  at  the  beginning,  in  South  Carolina  and  Vir- 
ginia towards  the  end  of  the  war."  They  specify,  among  other 
mercies,  the  assistance  derived  from  France,  and  the  happy  selec- 
tion "  of  a  commander-in-chief  of  the  armies  of  the  United  States, 
who,  in  this  important  and  difficult  charge,  has  given  universal 
satisfaction,  who  was  alike  acceptable  to  the  citizen  and  the  soldier, 
to  the  state  in  which  he  was  born,  and  to  every  other  on  the  con- 
tinent ;  and  whose  character  and  influence,  after  so  long  service, 
are  not  only  unimpaired  but  augmented." 

In  a  history  designed  to  exhibit  the  character  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  some  notice  of  the  part  taken  by  its  members,  and  espe- 
cially by  its  ministers,  in  an  event  so  important  as  the  revolutionary 
war,  to  the  religious  as  well  as  the  civil  destiny  of  our  country, 
could  not  be  omitted.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  her 
influence  was  thrown  upon  the  side  of  liberty ;  upon  that  side 
which  the  most  scrupulous  Christian  moralist,  unless  he  denies  the 
lawfulness  of  war  under  all  circumstances,  must  pronounce  to  be 
the  side  of  justice  and  of  human  happiness.  We  now  turn  to  the 
more  strictly  ecclesiastical  portion  of  our  narrative. 

FORMATION    OF    THE    NEW    CONSTITUTION. 

The  great  increase  of  the  church,  and  the  manifold  inconve- 
niences consequent  on  all  the  ministers  being  required  to  attend 


IN     THE     UNITED    STATES.  409 

every  year  the  meetings  of  the  Synod,  led  in  1786  to  the  adoption 
of  the  resolution :  That  the  Synod  would  establish  out  of  its  own 
body,  three  or  more  Synods  ;  out  of  which  shall  be  composed  a 
General  Assembly,  Synod,  or  Council,  agreeably  to  a  system  here- 
after to  be  adopted.  A  committee  was  accordingly  appointed  to 
prepare  a  plan  of  division.  This  committee  recommended  the  for- 
mation of  four  Synods,  viz. :  First,  the  Synod  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey  to  be  composed  of  the  Presbyteries  of  Dutchess,  Suf- 
folk, New  York  and  New  Brunswick.  Second,  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia to  consist  of  the  Presbyteries  of  Philadelphia,  Lewes,  New 
Castle,  Baltimore,  and  Carlisle.  Third,  the  Synod  of  Virginia  to 
include  the  Presbyteries  of  Redstone,  Hanover,  Lexington,  and 
Transylvania.  Fourth,  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  to  consist  of 
the  Presbyteries  of  Abingdon,  Orange,  and  South  Carolina.  The 
committee  further  recommended  the  formation  of  a  General  Assem- 
bly, to  be  composed  of  delegates  from  the  several  Presbyteries  in 
the  proportion  of  one  minister  and  one  elder  for  every  six  mem- 
bers. This  report  was  subsequently  adopted,  but  the  proposed 
division  was  not  to  take  effect  until  the  formation  of  the  new  con- 
stitution. 

In  order  to  prepare  such  a  constitution,  the  Synod  appointed 
Drs.  Witherspoon,  Rodgers,  Sproat,  Duffield,  Alison,  and  Ewing, 
Mr.  Matthew  Wilson  and  Dr.  Smith,  ministers,  and  Isaac  Snow- 
den,  Robert  Taggart,  and  John  Pinkerton,  elders,  a  committee  to 
examine  the  book  of  discipline  and  government,  and  digest  such  a 
system  as  they  should  think  adapted  to  the  state  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  America.  As  soon  as  this  draught  was  ready, 
the  committee  were  directed  to  have  it  printed  and  sent  down  to 
the  Presbyteries,  who  were  required  to  report  in  writing  their 
observations  upon  it  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Synod.  This  com- 
mittee performed  the  duty  assigned  them  ;  and  in  1787,  the  Pres- 
byteries were  called  upon  for  their  observations  on  the  plan  which 
had  been  submitted  to  their  consideration.  The  plan  was  then  dis- 
cussed at  much  length,  section  by  section,  and  various  amendments 
adopted.  When  this  process  was  completed,  the  form  of  govern- 
ment thus  adopted  was  printed,  and  again  transmitted  to  the  Pre* 


410  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

byteries  "  for  their  consideration,  and  for  the  consideration  of  the 
churches  under  their  care." 

The  Synod  then  "  took  into  consideration  the  last  paragraph  of 
the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  ; 
the  third  paragraph  of  the  twenty-third  chapter,  and  the  first 
paragraph  of  the  thirty-first  chapter,  and  having  made  some  alter- 
ations, agreed  that  the  said  paragraphs  as  now  altered,  be  printed 
for  consideration  together  with  the  draught  of  a  plan  of  govern- 
ment and  discipline.  The  Synod  also  appointed  a  committee  to 
revise  the  Westminster  Directory  for  Public  Worship,  and  to  have 
it,  when  thus  revised,  printed  together  with  the  draught,  for  con- 
sideration. And  the  Synod  agreed,  that  when  the  above  proposed 
alterations  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  shall  have  been  finally  deter- 
mined upon  by  this  body,  and  the  Directory  shall  have  been  revised 
as  above  directed  and  adopted  by  the  Synod,  the  said  Confession 
thus  altered,  and  the  Directory  thus  revised  and  adopted,  shall  be 
styled,  "  The  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory  for  Public  Worship 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

It  appears  that  the  Synod  were  not  entirely  unanimous,  at  least 
in  the  first  instance,  in  reference  to  these  measures.  When  the 
proposed  plan  of  government  was  transmitted  to  the  Presbytery 
of  Suffolk,  that  body  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Synod,  "  praying 
that  the  union  between  them  and  the  Synod  might  be  dissolved." 
The  Synod  appointed  a  committee  to  attend  a  meeting  of  that 
Presbytery,  and  to  enter  on  a  free  conversation  with  them  on  the 
nature  of  their  difficulties.  At  the  same  time  the  following  letter 
was  sent  to  the  Presbytery  in  question : 

"  Reverend  and  Dear  Brethren : 

"We  received  a  letter  from  you,  dated  April  11,  1787,  which 
both  surprised  and  grieved  us,  by  informing  us,  '  that  you  think  it 
needful  that  the  union  between  you  and  us  should  be  dissolved.' 
We  are  surprised  that  a  matter  of  so  much  importance  as  breaking 
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church  should  be  so  suddenly  gone  into, 
without  our  receiving  any  information  of  the  matter  in  respect  to 
any  previous  things  leading  to  such  an  event.     We  declare  that  we 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  411 

have  done  nothing,  which  we  know  of,  that  should  be  so  much  as  a 
matter  of  offence  to  you,  much  less  a  ground  of  withdrawment  or 
separation.  We  have  always  supposed  that  you  as  brethren  with 
us,  believed  in  the  general  system  of  doctrine,  discipline,  worship, 
and  church  government,  as  the  same  is  contained  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms  and  Directory.  You  inform  us  'that 
your  local  situation  renders  it  inconvenient  to  maintain  the  union.' 
This  is  the  same  that  ever  it  was,  when  we  took  sweet  counsel 
together,  strengthened  each  others'  hands  in  the  advancement  of 
the  cause  of  our  dear  Redeemer,  stood  firm  in  opposition  to  the 
enemies  of  our  religion,  and  greatly  comforted  and  encouraged  one 
another. 

"  You  say,  '  that  concurrence  with  the  draught  of  the  form  of 
government  and  discipline  for  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  North 
America  is  impracticable.'  That  is  only  a  draught  or  overture  for 
amendment,  and  we  should  have  rejoiced  much  to  have  had  your 
company  and  aid  in  pointing  out  those  impracticabilities,  and  in 
altering,  correcting,  and  completing  the  said  draught.  We  appre- 
hend that  there  are  no  principles  in  it  different  from  the  Westminster 
Directory ;  only  the  same  rendered  more  explicit  in  some  things, 
and  more  conformable  to  the  state  and  circumstances  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  America. 

"  You  likewise  add,  '  the  churches  in  your  limits  will  not  comply 
therewith.'  Perhaps  those  churches,  from  some  cause  unknown  to 
us,  may  have  hastily  imbibed  groundless  prejudices,  which  by  taking 
some  pains  with  them,  and  by  giving  a  proper  explanation  of  the 
matter,  might  be  readily  removed.  We  are  fully  of  opinion  that 
the  general  principles  in  the  said  draught  contain  the  plan  of 
church  discipline  and  government  revealed  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  are  conformable,  (allowance  being  made  for  the  differences  in 
the  states  of  civil  society  and  local  circumstances,)  to  the  practices 
and  usages  of  the  best  reformed  churches. 

"  Wherefore,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  in  the  bowels  of  brotherly 
love,  we  intreat  you  to  reconsider  the  resolution  expressed  in  your 
letter.  You  well  know  that  it  is  not  a  small  thing  to  rend  the  seam- 
less coat  of  Christ,  or  to  be  disjoined  parts  of  that  one  body  of  his 


412  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

church.  We  are  all  members  one  of  another.  There  should  be  no 
schism  in  the  body,  but  we  should  comfort,  encourage,  and 
strengthens  one  another,  by  the  firmest  union  in  our  common  Lord. 
We  are  Presbyterians,  and  we  firmly  believe  the  Presbyterian  sys- 
tem of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  church  government,  to  be  nearer 
the  word  of  God  than  that  of  any  other  sect  or  denomination  of 
Christians.  Shall  all  other  sects  and  parties  be  united  among  them- 
selves for  their  support  and  increase,  and  Presbyterians  divided  and 
subdivided,  so  as  to  be  the  scorn  of  some  a.«  d  the  prey  of  others  ? 
In  order  to  testify  to  you  the  high  sense  we  entertain  of  the  im- 
portance of  union  in  the  Presbyterian  body  it  America,  we  have 
appointed  a  committee,  viz.  the  Rev.  Dr.  Itodgers,  Dr.  McWhorter, 
Mr.  Roe,  Mr.  John  Woodhull,  and  Mr.  Davenport,  to  wait  on  you, 
to  converse  with  you,  and  to  endeavour  to  remove  difficulties. 

"  Therefore  we  request  the  moderator  of  your  Presbytery  to  call 
the  same  together,  to  meet  our  committee  at  Huntingdon  on  the 
first  Wednesday  in  September,  for  these  purposes,  at  which  time 
and  place  our  committee  are  appointed  to  attend.  That  you  may, 
in  a  spirit  of  candour  and  love,  reconsider  your  resolution,  and 
continue  in  a  state  of  union  with  us,  and  that  we  may,  by  our  united 
efforts,  advance  the  kingdom  of  our  glorious  Redeemer,  is  the 
earnest  prayer  of  your  affectionate  and  grieved  brethren." 

The  committee  above  named,  reported  the  following  year  to  the 
Synod,  that  after  a  full  and  amicable  conference  with  the  Suffolk 
brethren,  the  latter  withdrew  their  request  for  a  dismission,  as 
appeared  from  the  following  extract  from  their  minutes.  "  The 
Presbytery  of  Suffolk  met  at  Brook  Haven,  April  8,  1788,  accord- 
ing to  appointment.  Entered  upon  the  consideration  of  the  petition 
sent  to  the  Rev.  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  at  their  last 
sessions,  requesting  a  dismission  from  their  body :  and  after  delibe- 
rating on  it,  came  to  the  following  conclusion,  viz.  :  to  withdraw  the 
petition." 

It  is  known  also,  that  the  Rev.  Matthew  Wilson  was  far  from 
being  satisfied  with  the  form  of  government  ultimately  adopted. 
The  only  intimation  of  this  fact  contained  in  the  minutes  is  a 
record  to    the  following  effect:    "A  petition   from  the  Rev.  Dr 


IN    THE     UNITED     STATES.  413 

Matthew  Wilson,  detained  by  bodily  indisposition,  respecting  the 
draught  of  the  form  of  government,  was  presented  and  read. 
Ordered,  that  it  lie  on  the  table."* 

It  does  not  appear  that  this  dissatisfaction  extended  to  any  con- 
siderable number  of  the  members  ;  at  least  there  is  not  the  slightest 

*  Dr.  Matthew  Wilson,  though  an  old-side  man,  educated  under  Dr.  Alison, 
was  not  in  theory  a  Presbyterian,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term.  He 
seems  to  have  held  a  system  of  church  government  peculiar  to  himself, 
though  very  analogous  to  that  since  published  by  Mr.  Haldane,  in  Scotland. 
In  every  congregation  he  supposed  there  ought  to  be  a  Presbytery,  composed 
of  the  pastor,  or  bishop,  and  presbyters ;  which  presbyters  were  to  teach  or 
preach,  if  occasion  called  for  it.  He  questioned  the  propriety  of  Presbyteries 
constituted  as  ours  ai'e,  and  denied  the  authority  of  such  Presbyteries,  and  of 
Synods  over  churches  and  ministers.  There  is  extant  a  printed  sheet  contain- 
ing extracts  from  an  overture  of  his,  presented  to  the  Synod  in  1774,  present- 
ing twenty-one  queries,  "  the  reasonings  in  support  of  which  had  been  read 
before  the  Synod."  The  following  selection  from  these  queries  may  serve  to 
give  an  idea  of  Dr.  Wilson's  views. 

"  1.  Whether  every  apostolic  and  primitive  church  had  not  its  bishop  or 
pastor,  and  deacons  ?  The  pastor  his  assistant  presbyters,  one  of  whom  was 
the  catechist  or  doctor  ?  The  deacons  their  assistant  widows  for  the  sick  and 
poor  ?" 

"  4.  Whether,  besides  the  preaching  of  the  word,  &c.  by  the  bishop  or  pastor, 
they  had  not,  in  every  congregational  church,  presbyters  ordained  to  preach, 
when  invited,  in  their  own  or  any  other  congregation  ?  Acts  xi.  19  ;  1  Pet.  iv. 
10,  11,  &c." 

"5.  Whether  there  was  not  a  Presbytery  in  every  church,  i.  e.  congrega- 
tion, or  city,  composed  of  its  proper  officers  at  least  ?  Whether  bishops  or 
presbyters  were  not  of  the  same  order  essentially,  having  the  power  of  the  keys 
in  foro  exteriore  et  inierioref  Tit.  i.  5-7.  Phil.  i.  1.  Acts  xx.  17,  19,  &c.  as 
contended  for  by  Jerome,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  &c." 

"  8.  Whether  Christ,  or  his  apostles,  appointed  any  stated  judicatories  or 
vested  any  controlling  authority  in  any  bishop,  or  Synod,  or  Assembly,  over 
particular  Churches,  or  Presbyteries,  or  pastors  ?" 

"  15.  Whether  there  be  any  other  judicatures  besides  Presbyteries  in  par- 
ticular congregations,  authorized  in  God's  word,  as  having  powers  of  ordina- 
tion and  discipline,  censures,  admission  and  rejection  of  officers  and  members 
of  the  church?" 

"  19.  Whether  the  meeting  of  pastors  and  lay-elders,  one  of  each  from  every 
congregation,  can  be  a  scriptural  Presbytery  ?  Does  not  a  Presbytery  act  in 
a  church,  and  a  church  consist  of  persons  assembled  for  worship,  rather  than 
mere  government  ?     Can  there  be  a  true  apostolic  Presbytery,  unless  all  the 


414  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH 

intimation  on  the  minutes  of  the  want  of  perfect  unanimity.  It  is 
there  recorded,  that  the  "  Synod  having  fully  considered  the  draught 
of  the  form  of  government  and  discipline,  did,  on  a  view  of  the 
whole,  and  herehy  do  ratify  and  adopt  the  same  as  now  altered  and 
amended,  as  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Ame- 
rica, and  as  the  rule  of  their  proceedings  by  all  inferior  judicatories 
belonging  to  this  body.  And  they  order  that  a  correct  copy  be 
printed,  and  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  as  now  altered, 
be  printed  in  full  along  with  it,  as  part  of  the  Constitution. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  above  rati- 
fication by  the  Synod  is,  that  the  Form  of  Government  and  Dis- 
cipline, and  the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  now  ratified,  are  to  continue 
to  be  our  constitution  and  confession  of  faith  and  practice  unal- 
terably, unless  two-thirds  of  the  Presbyteries,  under  the  care  of 
the  General  Assembly,  shall  propose  alterations  or  amendments, 
and  such  alterations  or  amendments  shall  be  agreed  to  and  enacted 
by  the  General  Assembly." 

The  Synod  having  also  "  revised  and  corrected  the  Directory  for 
Worship,  did  approve  and  ratify  the  same,  and  do  hereby  appoint 

officers  at  least  of  the  church  convene,  and  give  their  consent,  or  the  majority 
of  them,  in  every  affair  of  discipline  before  them  V 

"  21.  Finally,  whether,  from  Scripture  or  the  primitive  Christian  churches, 
those  councils  met  in  the  name  of  Christ,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  union, 
love,  peace,  and  edification,  in  the  way  of  mutual  communion,  and  agreeable 
holy  conversation  of  all  the  churches  together,  have  any  church  power  at  all 
properly  so  called ;  such  as  has  too  often  been  claimed  by  our  Synods,  &c. 
over  any  churches,  their  members,  officers,  Presbyteries,  temporalities,  as  to 
receiving  or  rejecting  members,  making  acts,  laws,  and  canons,  assuming  the 
power  of  Presbyteries  to  admit  or  reject  pastors,  modelling  Presbyteries,  fixing 
their  limits,  ordering  one  church  to  one,  and  another  to  another ;  preventing 
young  presbyters  going  to  any  church  or  Presbytery  which  they  may  choose, 
and  where  they  are  called  in  providence.  I  say,  whether  all  these,  and  a 
thousand  other  acts  of  church  power,  are  not  altogether  ordinances  of  men, 
and  as  really  anti-Christian  additions  to  the  apostolic  church  regimen  and 
order  as  diocesan  Episcopacy  itself?     2  Cor.  i.  24." 

The  overture,  containing  these  queries,  was  presented  by  Dr.  Wilson  just 
after  the  difficulty  in  the  Synod  about  the  rule  respecting  foreign  ministers, 
and  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Puffield  in  Philadelphia ;  on  both  which  occasions, 
Dr.  Wilson  protested  against  the  action  of  the  Synod  in  the  premises. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  415 

the  said  Directory,  as  now  amended,  to  be  the  Directory  for  the 
public  worship  of  God  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  The}7  also  took  into  consideration  the  West- 
minster Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  and  having  made  a  small 
amendment  of  the  Larger,  did  approve,  and  do  hereby  approve  and 
ratify  the  said  Catechisms,  as  now  agreed  on,  as  the  Catechisms 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.  And  the  Synod 
order  that  the  said  Directory  and  Catechisms  be  printed  and  bound 
up  in  the  same  volume  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Form  of 
Government  and  Discipline,  and  that  the  whole  be  considered  as 
our  standard  of  doctrine,  government,  discipline,  and  worship, 
agreeably  to  the  resolutions  of  the  Synod  at  its  present  sessions. 

"  Ordered,  that  Dr.  Duffield,  Mr.  Armstrong,  and  Mr.  Green,  be 
a  committee  to  superintend  the  printing  and  publishing  of  the  above 
said  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  with  the  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment and  Discipline,  and  the  Directory  for  the  worship  of  God, 
as  now  adopted  and  ratified  by  the  Synod,  as  the  Constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America ;  and 
that  they  divide  the  several  parts  into  chapters  and  sections  pro- 
perly numbered." 

After  this  work  was  finally  accomplished,  it  was  resolved  unani- 
mously, "  That  this  Synod  be  divided,  and  it  is  hereby  divided  into 
four  Synods,  agreeably  to  an  act  made  and  provided  for  in  the  ses- 
sions of  Synod  in  the  year  1786,  and  this  division  shall  commence 
on  the  dissolution  of  the  present  Synod. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  to 
be  constituted  out  of  the  above  Synods  be  held,  and  it  is  hereby 
appointed  to  be  held  on  the  third  Thursday  of  May,  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  eighty-nine,  in  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  at  eleven  o'clock,  A.  M. ;  and  that 
Dr.  Witherspoon,  or,  in  case  of  his  absence,  Dr.  Rodgers,  open  the 
General  Assembly  with  a  sermon,  and  preside  until  a  moderator  be 
chosen." 

After  appointing  the  time  and  place  of  meeting  of  the  several 
Synods,  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  was  dissolved; 
and  the  session  was  concluded  with  prayer. 


416  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

Thus  closed  the  career  of  this  venerable  Synod,  after  an  exist- 
ence of  thirty  years  actively  and  usefully  employed.  During  this 
period  the  church  had  rapidly  increased.  The  Synod  had  received 
an  accession  of  about  two  hundred  and  thirty  new  members ;  it  had 
grown  from  eight  to  sixteen  Presbyteries,  and  had  under  its  care 
above  four  hundred  and  twenty  congregations.*  Of  these  about 
forty  were  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  three  hundred  and  eighty 
in  the  Middle  and  Southern  States.  Nothing  could  prove  more 
decisively  the  origin  and  general  character  of  the  great  mass  of  our 
church,  up  to  this  period.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  its  mem- 
bers were  located  in  those  portions  of  the  country  which  had  been 
settled  by  Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyterians. 

With  regard  to  the  Synod  it  may  be  remarked  that  it  consisted 
in  the  general,  of  liberally  educated  men.  Of  the  two  hundred 
and  thirty  new  members,  more  or  less,  received  after  the  union  in 
1758,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  were  graduates  of  the  College 
of  New  Jersey,  and  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  graduates  of  Yale. 
Of  the  residue  many  were  educated  in  Europe,  or  at  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  or  at  the  Newark  Academy  in  Delaware,  or  at 
Pequea,  or  during  the  latter  part  of  the  period  under  review,  at 
Hampden-Sydney  College,  or  at  the  Washington  Academy  in  Vir- 
ginia. It  hence  appears,  that  the  great  body  of  our  ministers,  aa 
well  as  of  our  people,  were  born  and  educated  within  the  bosom  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church. 

*  It  appears  from  a  printed  list  of  the  ministers  and  congregations,  pub- 
lished in  1788,  that  there  were  then  one  hundred  and  seventy-seven  ministers 
connected  with  the  Synod,  and  four  hundred  and  nineteen  congregations 
reported,  as  follows :  Suffolk  Presbytery,  thirteen  congregations ;  Dutchess 
nine  ;  New  York  thirty-nine  ;  New  Brunswick  twenty-six  ;  Philadelphia  twen- 
ty-two ;  New  Castle  twenty-seven  ;  Lewes  nineteen  ;  Baltimore  twelve  ;  Carlisle 
tifty-six;  Redstone  twenty-seven;  Lexington  twenty-seven  ;  Hanover  twenty- 
one;  Orange  seventy-nnc ;  Abingdon  twenty-five;  South  Carolina  forty-five; 
Transylvania  no  report.  As  this  Presbytery  consisted  of  five  ministers,  it  had 
probably  ten  congregations  under  its  care.  As  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
then  included  the  territory  now  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  Presbyteries 
of  Newark  and  Elizabethtown,  nineteen  or  twenty  of  its  congregations  wero 
in  New  Jersey;  leaving  the  number  of  congregations  in  the  State  of  New 
York  forty-one  or  forty-two. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  417 

The  members  of  this  Synod  were,  to  a  remarkable  degree,  har- 
monious in  their  doctrinal  views.  There  is  no  indication  of  diver- 
sity of  opinion  on  any  important  subject ;  there  were  no  doctrinal 
controversies,  and  but  one  instance  of  the  infliction  of  censure  for 
erroneous  opinions.  Besides  this  negative  evidence,  we  have  the 
positive  proof  to  be  found  in  the  frequent  declarations  of  the  ad- 
herence of  the  Synod  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  the 
unanimous  adoption  of  that  formula  as  a  part  of  the  new  con- 
stitution.* 

The  strictly  Presbyterian  character  of  the  Synod  is  manifest 
from  its  records,  which  may  challenge,  as  to  this  point,  a  compari- 
son with  those  of  any  similar  body.  The  men  who  professed  to 
derive  their  ecclesiastical  "  origin  from  the  Church  of  Scotland  ;" 
who  declared  that  they  "  adopted  her  standards  of  doctrine,  dis- 
cipline, and  worship,"  and  whose  ecclesiastical  proceedings  are  so 
fully  in  accordance  with  their  professions,  cannot  be  suspected  of  a 
want  of  Presbyterianism. 

A  much  more  interesting  point  is  the  religious  character  of  the 
Synod.  On  this  subject  little  can  be  learned  from  the  minutes. 
The  impression,  however,  made  by  the  plan  of  union  adopted  in 
1758 ;  by  the  tone  and  sentiments  of  the  numerous  documents 
having  reference  to  practical  subjects ;  by  the  frequent  appoint- 
ment of  days  for  special  religious  observance ;  by  the  care  taken 
to  promote  the  religious  education  of  the  young,  and  to  maintain 
a  high  standard  of  piety  in  the  ministry ;  and  by  the  efforts  made 
to  extend  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  to  the  destitute,  is  that,  as  a 

*  In  an  interesting  letter  written  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  King,  of  Franklin  County, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  there  is  a  strong  testimony  to  the  unanimity  of 
the  Synod  in  reference  to  matters  of  doctrine.  He  tells  his  correspondent, 
"  I  think  that  our  Synod  will  be  very  cautious,  as  they  have  hitherto  been, 
with  respect  to  the  admission  of  ministers  from  Europe,  and  especially  from 
such  places  as  are  suspected  of  encouraging  Arminianism,  &c,  and  where 
they  are  so  lax  as  to  the  admission  of  candidates.  It  is  a  particular  happiness 
for  us  as  yet,  that  we  have  been  cautious,  and  Divine  Providence  has  favoured 
our  endeavours  ;  for  I  do  not  know  that  any  minister  belonging  to  our  Synod 
can  be  reasonably  suspected  of  leaning  to  any  but  the  Calvinistic  scheme." 
This  letter  was  written  in  answer  to  one  dated  April  13th,  1775. — See  Pitts- 
burgh Herald,  April  22d,  1836. 
VOL.  II. — 27 


418  PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCII 

body,  the  Synod  of  Now  York  and  Philadelphia  was  distinguished 
for  its  piety.  And  this  impression  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that 
so  large  a  number  of  its  members  are  still  held  in  grateful  remem- 
brance as  devoted  servants  of  God. 

As  to  the  state  of  religion  throughout  the  Church  during  this 
period,  neither  the  limits  of  this  work,  nor  the  materials  at  the 
command  of  the  writer,  admit  of  its  being  here  fully  considered. 
Tt  is  known  that,  in  general,  the  gospel  was  faithfully  preached, 
that  many  new  churches  were  organized,  and  old  congregations 
were  enlarged.  It  is  known,  also,  that  in  many  parts  of  the  Church 
there  were  revivals  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  Under  the  admin- 
istration of  Dr.  Finley,  there  was,  as  already  mentioned,  a  revival 
in  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  during  which  about  fifty  of  the 
students  became  members  of  the  Church.  There  were  frequent 
seasons  of  this  kind  also  in  Pennsylvania,  especially  under  the 
ministry  of  Mr.  McMillan,  Mr.  J.  Smith,  and  Mr.  Powers.  With 
regard  to  Virginia,  it  is  stated,  "  that  from  the  constitution  of  the 
Hanover  Presbytery,  (1755,)  to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Davies,  (1759,) 
the  progress  of  religion  was  more  rapid  than  from  that  time  to  the 
division  of  the  Presbytery,  (1770.)  In  the  latter  of  these  periods, 
it  appears  to  have  been  declining  as  to  the  life  and  power  of  it,  in 
those  places  where  before  it  was  most  flourishing ;  but  it  spread  to 
other  places,  and  the  Church  was  extended  much  further  during 
this  period.  And  though  there  was  no  remarkable  revival  of  reli- 
gion, it  was  gradually  taking  root  in  a  few  in  many  places."*  The 
period  from  the  division  of  the  Presbytery  until  the  formation  of 
the  General  Assembly,  was  marked  by  several  revivals.  That  which 
occurred  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover,  "  was 
begun  and  carried  on  principally  under  the  ministry  of  the  Rev.  J. 
B.  Smith,  who  had  charge  of  the  congregations  of  Cumberland  and 
Briery.  The  word  at  this  time  appeared  to  have  a  peculiar  effect 
on  the  minds  of  the  people.  All  who  attended  seemed  to  feel  in 
some  measure;  and  many  were  deeply  affected,  turned  from  their 
wicked  practices,  and  earnestly  engaged  in  seeking  the  favour  of 
God.     Some  of  these  impressions  soon  wore  off,  but  generally  they 

*  MS.  History  of  the  Church  in  Virginia. 


IN     THE     UNITED     STATES.  419 

continued  for  some  time.  A  considerable  number  of  those  that 
were  awakened  obtained  a  comfortable  hope  of  their  acceptance 
with  God,  and  joined  the  Church.  The  manner  of  the  Spirit's 
operation  was  similar  to  what  has  been  known  in  revivals,  very 
various,  yet  producing  the  same  effects  in  essential  points.  This 
work  seemed  to  go  on  for  several  years,  without  any  abatement  of 
the  fervour  which  appeared  at  first;  but,  as  might  be  expected, 
this  at  length  subsided."*  It  is  further  stated,  that,  "  at  this  time 
a  greater  attention  to  religion  than  usual  prevailed  through  the 
whole  country." 

Nearly  at  the  same  time  there  "  was  a  very  considerable  revival 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Lexington  Presbytery.  It  began,  and 
continued  to  prevail  most,  in  the  congregations  of  Lexington  and 
New  Monmouth,  which  were  under  the  pastoral  care  of  the  Rev. 
William  Graham,  but  extended  more  or  less  into  all  the  conereea- 
tions  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery.  It  prevailed  consider- 
ably in  Washington  Academy,  so  that  many  who  were  at  that 
place,  have  since  been  licensed  to  preach  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and 
are  now  settled  in  the  congregations  of  this  and  the  adjoining 
Presbyteries,  "f 

The  effects  of  the  revolutionary  war  on  the  state  of  our  Church 
was  extensively  and  variously  disastrous.  The  young  men  were 
called  from  the  seclusion  of  their  homes  to  the  demoralizing 
atmosphere  of  a  camp ;  congregations  were  broken  up ;  churches 
were  burnt,  and  in  more  than  one  instance  pastors  were  murdered  ; 
the  usual  ministerial  intercourse  and  efforts  for  the  dissemination 
of  the  gospel  were  in  a  great  measure  suspended,  and  public  morals 
in  various  respects  deteriorated.  From  these  effects  it  took  the 
Church  a  considerable  time  to  recover ;  but  she  shared,  through 
the  blessing  of  God,  in  the  returning  health  and  prosperity  of  fhe 
country,  and  has  since  grown  with  the  growth,  and  strengthened 
with  the  strength,  of  our  highly  favoured  nation. 

*  MS.  History  of  the  Church  in  Virginia. 

f  MS.  History  prepared  by  the  Lexington  Presbytery. 


A  LIST 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK  AND  PHILADELPHIA, 
FROM  1758  TO  1788,  INCLUSIVE. 


The  years  as  given  in  the  list,  indicate  the  first  appearance  of 
the  names  of  the  new  members  on  the  minutes,  which  was  in  many 
cases  some  years  after  their  ordination.  The  letter  P.  is  placed 
after  the  names  of  the  graduates  of  the  College  at  Princeton,  New 
Jersey  ;  Y.  after  those  of  the  graduates  of  Yale  ;  and  H.  after  the 
graduates  of  Harvard.  The  word  "received,"  is  placed  after  the 
names  of  those  who  were  admitted  as  ordained  ministers  from  other 
churches ;  and  the  place  whence  they  were  received  is  mentioned, 
whenever  it  was  stated  on  the  minutes.* 


1758. 


Presbyteries. 
Philadelphia, 


New  Castle, 


Gilbert  Tennent, 
Charles  Beatty, 
Richard  Treat,  Y. 
Henry  Martin,  P. 
Robert  Cross, 
Francis  Alison, 
Benjamin  Chesnut, 

P. 
Andrew  Hunter, 
Nehemiah  Green- 
man,  Y. 
William  Ramsey, 
David  Laurence, 
John  Kinkead, 
John  Griffiths, 
George  Gillespie, 
John  Roilgers, 
Adam  Boyd, 
Samuel  Finley, 
Hector  Alison, 


Presbyteries. 
New  Castle, 


New  York, 


Daniel  Thane,  P. 

Charles  Tennent, 

William  McKen- 
nan, 

Alexander  McDow- 
ell, 

James  Finley, 

John  Blair, 

Alexander  Hutche- 
son, 

Andrew  Sterling, 

Andrew  Day, 

David  Bostwick, 

Andrew  Kittletas, 
Y. 

Aaron  Richards,  Y. 

Nathaniel  Whitaker 
P. 

Caleb  Smith. 

Alexander  Cum- 


•  It  was  found  very  difficult  to  make  out  the  list  of  members  here  given,  on 
account  of  the  great  diversity  in  the  orthography  of  the  names  as  written  in  the 
minutes;   to  the  frequent  omission  of  a  full  record  of  the  absent  members,  and  to 
various  other  sources  of  perplexity. 
(420) 


421 


Presbyteries. 
New  York, 


Suffolk, 


New  Brunswick, 


Donegal, 


Lewes, 


John  Brainerd,  Y. 
John  Pierson,  Y. 
Timothy  Jones,  Y. 
Jacob  Green,  H. 
Jonathan  Elmore,  Y. 
Simon  Horton,  Y. 
John  Smith, 
Chauncy  Graham, 

Y. 
Enos  Ayres,  P. 
John  Morlht,  P. 
John  Darby, 
Timothy  Allen,  Y. 
John  Maltby,  Y. 
Hugh  Knox,  P. 
Silas  Leonard,  Y. 
Ebeuezer  Prime,  Y. 
Benjamin  Talmage, 

Y. 
Abner  Reeves,  Y. 
James  Brown,  Y. 
Sylvanus  White, 
Samuel  Buel,  Y. 
Samuel  Sackett, 
Eliphalet  Ball,  Y. 
Thomas  Lewis,  Y. 
William  Tennent, 
Samuel  Kennedy,  P. 
Charles  McKnight, 
Benjamin  Hait,  P. 
Davit!  Cowell,  H. 
John  Guild,  H. 
Job  Prudden, Y. 
Israel  Read,  P.        . 
Elihu  Spencer,  Y. 
James  McCrea, 
Conradus  Wurtz, 
Samuel  Harker, 
Joseph  Tate, 
George  Duifield,  P. 
John  Steel, 
John  Rowan, 
John  Elder, 
Samson  Smith, 
Robert  McMurdie, 
Samuel  Thompson, 
Robert  Smith, 
John  Hoge,  P. 
Matthew  Wilson, 
John  Miller, 
Hugh  Henry,  P. 
Moses  Tuttle,  Y. 
John  Harris,  P. 


Presbyteries. 
Hanover, 


Samuel  Davies, 
Robert  Henry,  P 
Alexander  Creag 

head, 
Samuel  Black, 
John  Craig, 
Alexander  Miller, 
John  Wright, 
John  Brown,  P. 
John  Martin, 
Hugh  McCadden,  P 
Richard  Sankey, 
John  Todd,  P. 


1759. 


Suffolk, 
New  York, 


Hanover, 


Moses  Baldwin,  P. 
Abner  Brush,  P. 
Benjamin  Woodruff, 

P. 
Henry  Patillo, 
William  Richardson. 


1760. 


New  Castle, 
Philadelphia, 
New  Brunswick, 


John  Ewing,  P. 
James  Latta, 
William  Kirkpa- 

trick,  P. 
Alexander  McWhor- 

ter,  P. 


1761. 


New  Brunswick, 

Philadelphia, 
New  Castle, 
Suffolk, 


James  Caldwell, P. 
John  Clark,  P. 
James  Hunt,  P. 
John  Hanna,  P. 
John  Snnonton, 
John  Beard, 
John  Strain,  P. 
John  Carmichael,  P 
Ezra  Reeves,  Y. 


1762. 

New  York,  Azel  Roe,  P. 

New  Brunswick,       Samuel  Parkhurst,  P 
"  Joseph  Treat,  P. 


422 


Prewbyterie). 

New  Brunswick,        William  Mills,  P. 
Lowes,  Joseph  Montgomery, 

P. 


1763. 

New  Brunswick,       William  Tennent, 
jun'r,  P. 
11  Enoch  Green,  P. 

Hanover,  James  Waddel, 

Dutchess,  Elisha   Kent,   Y.    in 

1729. 
"  Solomon  Mead,  Y. 

"  John  Peck. 


1764. 


Suffolk, 

New  Brunswick, 

u 
V 
u 

Suffolk 


Thomas    Payne,    Y. 

received. 
Amos  Thompson,  P. 
Jacob  Ker,  P. 
Nathan  Ker,  P. 
Thomas  Smith,  P. 
Nehemiah  Baker,  Y. 

in  1742. 


1765. 


Suffolk, 


Samson    Occam,    an 
Indian. 

"  Benjamin  Goldsmith, 

Y. 
New  York,  Francis   Peppard,  P. 

New  Brunswick,       James  Lyon,  P. 

"  John  Roseborough, 

P. 
"  Jonathan   Leavitt, 

Y.    received    from 
New  England. 
David  Rice,  P. 
Alexander   Houston, 


Hanover, 
Lewes, 


1766. 


Donegal, 


John  Slemons,  P. 
Robert  Cooper,  P. 


Presbyteries. 

Philadelphia. 

New  Castle, 

Suffolk, 

New  Brunswick, 

2d  Philadelphia, 

Dutchess, 


John  Murray,* 
Samuel  Blair,  P. 
David  Rose,  Y. 
David  Caldwell,  P 
Patrick  Alison, 
Samuel  Dunlap, 
Wheeler  Case,  P. 


1767. 


Suffolk, 
New  York, 


Elam  Potter,  Y. 
John  Close,  P. 
Jedediah  Chapman, 
Y. 


1768. 


New  Brunswick, 

Donegal, 

2d  Philadelphia, 

Lewes, 


Jeremiah  Halsey,  P 
John  Craighead,  P. 
James  Lang, 
Thomas  McCrackin, 

P. 
John  Bacon,  P. 


1769. 


1st  Philadelphia, 


New  Castle, 


New  York, 
New  Brunswick, 


Hanover, 


Lewes, 


Alexander  Mitchell, 

P. 
James  Sproat,  Y.  re- 
ceived from  New 

England. 
John  McCreary,  P. 
William  Foster,  P. 
Joseph  Smith,  P. 
Daniel   McClealand, 

received. 
James  Tutlle,  P. 
John     Witherspoon, 

received  from 

Scotland. 
James  Creswell, 
Charles  Cummings, 
Joseph     Alexandei 

P. 
Thomas  Jackson, 
Samuel  Leake,  P. 
John  Brown. 


*  Was  not  received  by  the  Synod. 


423 


1770. 

Presbyteries. 

1st  Philadelphia,       James  Boyd,  P. 
'•  James  Watt.  P. 

Donegal,  John  King, 

New  York,  William    Woodhull 

P. 
Donegal,  Hezekiah   James 

Balch,  P. 
Hanover,  Hezekiah  Balcli,  P. 

2d  Philadelphia,        Samuel  Eakin,  P. 


1771. 


New  Castle, 

New  York, 
it 
<c 

Donegal, 


John  Woodhull,  P. 

Josi^h  Lewis,  P. 

Alexander  Miller,  P. 

Oliver  Deeming,  Y. 

Jonathan  Murdock, 
Y. 

Joseph  Rhea,  re- 
ceived from  Ire- 
land. 


1772. 


New  Castle, 


Suffolk, 

New  Brunswick, 

New  York, 
New  Brunswick, 

Donegal, 
Dutchess, 


Thomas  Read, 

James  Wilson,  P. 

James  Anderson, 

Joshua  Hart,  P. 

Alexander  McLean, 

William  Schenck,  P. 

Amzi  Lewis,  Y. 

Jacob    Vanartdalen, 
P. 

Hugh  Vance,  P. 

Benjamin   Strong, 
Y.   received   from 
New  England. 

Ichabod  Lewis,  Y. 

Samuel  Mills,  Y. 


1773. 


Donegal, 


William  Thorn, 
Robert    Hughes,    re- 
ceived   from    Ire- 
land. 


Presbyteries. 
Donegal, 


•David  McClure,  re 
Beived  from  New 
England. 

•Levi  Frisbie,   Dart, 
received      from 
New  England. 


1774. 


1st  Philadelphia, 

New  Castle, 

Hanover, 

Orange, 


2d  Philadelphia, 


William  Hollings- 
head, 

Thomas  Smyth,  P. 

William  Irwin, 

James  Campbell,  re- 
ceived from  South 
Carolina. 

Thomas  Reese,  P. 

John  Simpson,  P. 

James  Edmonds,  re- 
ceived from  Soutn 
Carolina. 

Robert  Davidson. 


1775. 


1st  Philadelphia, 

Suffolk, 
New  York, 

New  Brunswick, 


Donegal, 


Dutchess, 


Nathaniel  Irvin,  P. 

Daniel  McCalla,  P. 

John  Davenport,  P. 

Matthias  Burnet,  P. 

Joseph  Grover,  Y. 

James  Gourly,  re- 
ceived from  Scot- 
land. 

Thomas  McPherrin, 
P. 

Colin     McFarquhar, 
received     from 
Scotland. 

David  Close, 

Blackleech  Burnet. 


1776. 


1st  Philadelphia, 


Israel  Evans,  P. 
William  Linn,  P. 


Missionaries  not  received  by  the  Synod. 


424 


Presbyteries. 
Now  Brunswick, 
Donegal, 

2d  Philadelphia, 


John  Dobow,  P. 

Samuel  Dougal, 

John  Black,  P. 

Hugh  McGill,  re- 
ceived from  Ire- 
land. 


1777. 


1st  Philadelphia, 
New  Castle, 
New  York, 

New  Brunswick, 
Donegal, 
it 

Hanover, 
Lewes, 


Robert  Keith,  P. 
James  Power,  P. 
Ehenezer    Bradford, 

P. 
John  Warford,  P. 
John  McMillan,  P. 
John  McKnight,  P. 
Samuel  Stanhope 

Smith,  P. 
Ebenezer  Brooks. 


1778. 


New  Castle, 
New  York, 


James     F.     Arm- 
strong, P. 
Andrew  King,  P. 
Thaddeus  Dodd,  P. 


1779. 


1st  Philadelphia, 


James  Grier,  P. 
Andrew  Hunter. 


1780. 


1st  Philadelphia, 
New  Castle, 
New  Brunswick, 

Hanover, 


Hanover, 

Lewes, 


Isaac  Keith,  P. 
William  Smith,  P. 
Philip  Stockton, 
George  Faitoute,  P. 
John  Blair  Smith,  P. 
Caleb  Wallace,  P. 
Samuel  Doak,  P. 
Edward    Crawford, 

P. 
James      McConnell, 

P. 
John  Rankin, 


Presbyteries. 

Lewes, 

Orange, 


New  Castle, 
New  York, 
Donegal, 


Samuel  McMasters, 
Samuel  McCorkle,  P. 
Robert  Archibald,  P. 


1781. 


Daniel  Jones, 
John  Joline,  P. 
David  Bard,  P. 
Samuel  Waugh,  P. 
John  Linn,  P. 


1782. 


Orange, 


New  Castle, 


Donegal, 

Orange, 

ii 

1st  Philadelphia, 


Thomas  H.  McCall, 
P. 

James  Hall,  P. 

Thomas  Creaghead, 
P. 

James  Templeton,  P. 

James  McRee,  P. 

John  Cosson, 

Nathaniel  W.  Sem« 
pie,  P. 

John  E.  Finley,  P. 

James  Dunlap,  P. 

John  Henderson,  P. 

Daniel  Thatcher, 

William  Hill, 

William  Mackey 
Tennent,  P.  re- 
ceived from  Con- 
necticut. 


1783. 


Donegal, 


Orange, 


Matthew    Woods, 

P. 
Stephen  Balch,  P. 
John  Hill, 
David  Barr. 


1784. 


1st  Philadelphia, 
Orange, 


Simeon  Hyde,  Y. 
Francis  Cumming«, 
James  Frazier. 


42^ 


1785. 

Presbyteries. 

1st  Philadelphia,       William   McRee,  re- 
ceived   from    Ire- 
land. 
New  Brunswick,       Joseph  Rue,  P. 
"  Peter  Wilson,  P. 

"  William  Boyd,  P. 

"  Joseph  Clark,  P. 

"  George  Lackey,  P. 

Donegal,  James  Johnston, 

"  Matthew    Stephens, 

received      from 
Ireland. 
New  Castle,  James     Munro,     re- 

ceived from   Scot- 
land. 


1786. 


1st  Philadelphia, 


New  Castle, 
Suffolk, 


New  York, 


New  Brunswick, 
Hanover, 


John  Johnston,  re- 
ceived from  Ire- 
land. 

William  Pickels,  re- 
ceived from  Eng- 
land. 

John  Burton, | 

Joshua  Williams,  Y. 

Nathan  Woodhull, 
Y. 

John  McDonald,-)- 

James  Wilson,  re- 
ceived from  Scot- 
land. 

James  Wilson,  jr.-J- 

James      Glassbrook, 
received     from 
England. 

James  Muir,  receiv- 
ed from  Bermuda. 

William  Graham,  P. 

Moses  Hoge, 

Samuel  Carrick, 

John  Montgomery,  P. 


Presbyteries. 
Hanover, 


New  Castl 
Orange, 


South  Carolina, 


New  York, 


New  Brunswick, 

Philadelphia, 

Carlisle, 


William  Wilson, 
Benjamin  Irwin,  P 
John  McCue, 
Samuel   Shannon,  P 
Andrew  McClure, 
James  Mitchell, 
John  D.  Blair,  P. 
Samuel  Houston, 
Adam  Rankin, 
Samuel  Barr,+ 
Jacob  Leake. 


1787. 


Robert  Hall, 
Robert  Finley, 
Robert  Mecklin, 
James      Thompson, 

received     from 

Scotland. 
Walter  Monteith, 
Ashbel  Green,  P. 
Charles    Nesbit,    re 

ceived       from 

Scotland. 


1788. 


North  Carolina, 
Suffolk, 


New  York, 
New  Brunswick, 


Carlisle, 


Suffolk, 


Nathan  Grier, 

Noah  Wetmore,  Y 
in  1757. 

Aaron  Woolworth. 
Y.  received  from 
New  England. 

Samuel  Fordham, 

Ira  Condict,  P. 

Asa  Dunham, 

Samuel  Wilson,  P. 

Hugh  Morrison,} 

James  Snodgrass, 

Thomas  Russel. 


t  Received  as  licentiates  or  candidates  from  Scotland   the  year  before. 
i  Received  the  year  before  as  a  licentiate  from  Ireland. 


END    OF     PART    II. 


mgm 


mm1 
■HH 


Sufi 


